an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal deâ—th it is from Gâ—ds justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in Ro. 5 Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment Gâ—d as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiah teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3 ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar. l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Pigghius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christs suffering of the essential curse Reason I. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His
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 afflictions 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 wrath 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 sufferingâ— 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 doâ—r of the Tent of the Congregation day and night seven dayes and shall keep the charge of Jehovah 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
the Hebrew word for bruised or peirced 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 Isaiah saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgressions 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 him 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 hand 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 Joh. 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 Joh. 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 Joh. 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 Jesus 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 Malefactor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unsound 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 tormented 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 Sathan 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Sathan Isa 53. 7. when hee suffered himself to bee apprehended by a band of armed Souldiers and to bee bound Es 53. 7. as a prisoner and as a Malefactor and in this sense Christ saith I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. I will readily venture my life in the combate with that roaring Lion Sathan for the redemption of my sheep And thus Moses did offer his life to redeem the lives of the Israelites when they had forfeited their lives into the hands of Gods justice by worshipping the Golden Calf Exod. 32. Then Moses said I will now go up to the Lord peradventure I shall make Attonement for your sin and he said to God If thou wilt forgive their sin and if not but that they must still dye blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written called the Book of the living Ps 69. 29. and called also the Writing of the house of Israel Eze. 13. 9. And herein Moses saith Ainsworth dealt as a Mediator
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 Azab 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 meet 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 best 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. Clendou 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 confesseth thus much in general That the guilt of our sins could not bee imputed to Christ 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 confession 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 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 passed 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
by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to affâ—ct him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the righteousnesse of God cannot bee meant of the righteousnesse of Christ in this Text to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction de Reconc Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5 6. SECT II. 2 I Will now labour to shew the true sense of this Text by which it will appear that Mr. Nortons comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text each clause in the Text lies thus 1 For This word For is a causal particle and implies for this cause 2 He namely God the Father 3 Made that is to say Ordained Constituted Appointed but this could not bee without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity and so he was ordained or constituted to bee made a curse by his combating with Sathan as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him that is to say Christ These two words He and Him in the former part of this verse and God and Him in the latter part of this verse must carefully bee marked as a cleer distinction between the persons as I have also noted above 5 To bee sin for us that is to
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 sort 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 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. some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish 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 Inner-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 hanged are se infamed that the carkass of such in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall de file 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 from him in his life-time about this controversie whereby I know that his judgement was not throughly established one way or other and I know by some expressions of his that he could not hold that Christ suffered Hell-torments though he did hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and I find that other learned Divines do hold as he did namely That Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and yet they deny that he suffered Hell-torments and the Second-death which is also directly contrary to Mr. Nortons fundamentals for hee holds just satisfaction by a just suffering of the essential Curse of Hell-torments Dr. Preston saith That the curse of God doth consist in four things 1 When God doth separate a man from grace goodness and In his Treitise of Love p. 176. holiness 2 When he is separated from the presence of the Lord from the joy from the influence and from the protection of God 3 When he is cursed in outward things 4 When he shall suffer the eternal curse at the day of judgement But now was Christ thus cursed of God Methinks it should make a godly man
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 extrinsecally 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 granted 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 chastifement 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 similitude 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 Boaâ—erges 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 afflicter with Soul-sorrows p. 404 178 Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice But yet it doth not thence follow that he was his own Executioner or Self murderer as Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly thence infer p. 405 No full satisfaction could be made by any thing that Christ suffered before his bodily death was compleated because therein onely lay the formality of his sacrifice withouâ— which no full satisfaction could be made p. 415 309 79. 145 315 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth make Christ to die formally under the sense of the wrath of God for full satisfaction but at other times he doth cross that and makes satisfaction to be fully compleated before hee suffered his natural death So uncertain hee is in his foundation-Principles touching Christs satisfaction p. 416 There was a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and the manner of Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect p. 417 * Add this Note to p. 417. Mr. Weams on the Judicial Laws p. 78. doth observe that though Peter said to Christ in Joh. 13. 37. Lord I will lay down my life for thy sake yet Christ that knew his natural unwillingness better than himself told him afterwards that another shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not so that in the conclusion when Peter came indeed to dye for Christ he was partly willing and partly unwilling Ioh. 21. 18. which kind of unwillingness was not in Christ at his death because he had by his prayers in the Garden obtained a confirmation against his naturall fear of death when hee came to dye on the cross Therefore Mr. Norton doth deale very unadvisedly to compare the manner of Peters laying downe his life with the manner of Christs laying downe his life for
de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams covenant-Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is â—n effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de facto are not Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam till it please God to make
causes and according to the way All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins imputed 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 were 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 sinfulnesse 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 cating 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 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 Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed 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 Reat us culpae poenae propter culpam ex obligatione legis Christs guilt is but Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obligatus ad eandem the same in value but not Eadem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molinaeus 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 Mr. 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 Malefactor 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 Crosse 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 well as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It In Rom 5. p. 121. b. cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hee 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 Pigghius that God could not impute the guilt of Adams 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 sin as well as in his guilt and therefore the guilt of his sin is justly imputed to Infants as well as unto others and this example doth shew us that sin and guilt are relates in the same subject and not in two distinct subjects and this David did acknowledge in Ps 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Mark this he doth acknowledge that God did not onely forgive his sin but the iniquity guilt or punishment of his sin namely condemnation but not all outward punishments In these words I say it is evident that David doth acknowledge that sin and guilt do cleave as close together as the skin and flesh do to the bones and the like he doth acknowledge in Psal 41. 5. and therefore if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ then out of doubt sin it self was imputed to Christ also and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do Secondly touching the point of Gods imputation I beleeve it cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that God doth impute
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death is not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve hell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traberâ—n do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on him according to the natural order of Justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary â—ause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should aâ— a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all this may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posiâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I think the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr.
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 spiritual and eternal 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 malefactors 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 Phi. 2. 9 10 11. Es 5 3 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 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 hee gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that
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 fore-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 paint of death namely loâ—â—â—ng or healing the soars and wounds that were inflicted on his 〈◊〉 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 Rom. 4. 25. delivered him into the hands of Satan according to Gen. 3. 15. 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 consecration 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 his 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 of Christs vital sâ—ul and not of his immortal soul Matth. 26. 38. Isa 53. 10. Christs soul did not suffer any thing at all from Gods immediate wrath Secondly I have shewed that the word Soul in these places is not in the first place meant of Christs immortal soul but of his vital soul for Nephesh in Isa 53. 10 and Psyche in Mat. 26. 38. for it is not as Mr. Norton cites it in v. 37. is not meant of Christs immortal soul but of his sensitive soul as I have before shewed in chap. 7. Nephesh saith Carlile is never used in the Old Testament for the immortal spirit and Psyche is very seldom used in the New Testament for the immortal spirit but saith he it is abundantly used for the sensitive soul Paul said to Epaphroditus that for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death not regarding his Soul Phil. 2. 30. And saith Christ The good Shepherd laieth down his soul for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. And saith Christ I am the good Shepherd I lay down my soul Joh. 10. 15. And therefore doth my father love me Joh. 10. 15 â—7 18 because I lay down my soul and take it
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 â—â—cause 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 sweat 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 meer folly and madness This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. Nortons Tenent for Mr. Norton holds no sufferings to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to the Law namely Christs suffering of the Essential punishment of Hel torments both of loss and sense both in body and soul But saith this Annotation I will not say 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 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 Our larger Annotation on Ps 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination which is but meer folly and madness that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell both in 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 contrariously delivered by Mr. Norton as I have shewed at large in Chap. 4. and therefore I refer the Reader thither for a full answer to this place But I come now to open the word Forsaken in Psal â—2 1. And I will open the sense by answering these three Questions I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross II. Why did God forsake Christ on the Cross III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross Question I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross Reply 9. I Have in part shewed how in the Dialogue but I will add somewhat to confirm it 1 Therefore I say that God forsook Christ on the Cross by God
and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death but a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p. 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. THe quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Atrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP. IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen 3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 9◠22 chap. 13 14 Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises By which wide differing expressions be leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123. holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to
consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But saith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate â—ioâ— from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decâ—ees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because be was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174. 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our redemption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound him and to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romant p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousness of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgement and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth
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 uâ— 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. Hhat 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 New Covenant p 235 * Add this Note to p. 239. at 5. Dicaioma was used by the Seventy for the Jews outward justification 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 sight 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 righteous 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 thee 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 Covenaxt 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 righteous 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 Sanctio 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 remission of sins and this exposition in the same page he doth also apply to our being sanctified by justification in 1 Cor. 6. 11. but this kind of justifying holiness by Gods Attonement and forgiveness which makes a sinner to abide for ever righteous just and holy in Gods sight Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie And in p. 228. he calls this Attonement and forgiveness A pestilent fiction and abomination O blindness and blasphemy extream in the typical sense and use of the legal word Sanctified purged cleansed purified made righteous and justified was the Jews a holy Nation by inherent righteousness or rather was it not because of their constant practise to make themselves holy according to the first Covenant by their typical holiness CHAP. XV. THe outward manner of Christs death in being crucified on a Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. by this phrase Thou shalt peirce him in the Foot-soals p. 263 Stoning to death and hanging up of the dead body on a Tree to be gazed on for a further infamy after his stoning to death was accounted to be the most accursed of all kinds of death because of the infamy that was contracted by hanging after he was stoned to death p. 268 * Add this Note to p. 268. When the Jews had killed the ten sons of Haman on the thirteenth day of Adar then Ester requested the King that their dead bodies might be hanged on a Gallows all the fourteenth day for their greater infamy reproach and curse in relation both to Hamans execrable plot and also to Gods ancient curse upon the Amalekites for they came of the stock of the Amalekites that God had eminently cursed Ester 9. 12 13 14. Exod. 17. 16. 1
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 gift 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 vicâ—s 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 Imageâ— for he created him to be but of a mâ—rtable 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 iâ— hel is but an accidental punishment to the first â—piritual 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 hath 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. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth Proposition is this Merit is either absolute so God cannot be a debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or by way of free Covenant so God in case hath made himself a debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and onely that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him Reply He saith Gods will being the rule of justice this 's true if it be taken for his secret will for it is his secret and not his revealed will that is the inviolable rule of his relative justice God may and often doth free a sinner from his revealed threatned punishments upon such account as himself pleased to decree in the counsel of his own will and yet he is just in so doing though his revealed will be contrary and the reason is plain because he hath ordained his secret will to be the absolute rule of his inviolable relative justice for God is often said to repent of his revealed threatned plagues as I have
respect the Temple is also called The habitation of justice Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither were justified persons as to the outward man yea all the Nation in this respect are holy Exod. 19. and therefore any of Israel though never so vild by moral sins yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary as justified persons in regard of that place but on the contrary if any man though never so godly and therefore morally justified did but want this ceremonial cleansing they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in Gods Sanctuary and were guilty of cutting off by death Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19. 13. so then their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law was but to typifie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time as the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse as in Jer. 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33 8. sinned against me and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me Here cleansing is put for justification by forgivenesse And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall bee clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idols will I cleanse you And in vers 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9. 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fulnesse of time doth purge us Heb. 1. 3-and cleanse us Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Fathers Attonement which doth formally expiate sin cleanse it purge it and wash it away See Ains in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 16. 30 33. Numb 8. 7 21. Numb 19. 9. Psal 51. 7. So that to them that are in Charist there is no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers of Gal. 4. 4. is this God sent forth his Son This word sent implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity or else the Father could not have sent him forth for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son because they are in nature equal Joh. 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent which may bee called a Covenant I came down from Heaven said Christ not to do mine own humane will but the will of him that sent me Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman For according to Gen. 3 15. Hee was made of the seed of the woman by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law Being made of a woman that was a Jew he was made under the Law of Types 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law But hee could not redeem any from the bondage of Moses Rites untill hee had fulfilled all the Types by his own blessed death and sacrifice in the fulnesse of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God and from Sathans Head-plot It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice but that he did as he was a Jew only but he fulfilled the Types as hee was a Mediator only by his death and sacrifice and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us both from the bondage of Moses Rites and also from Sathans Head-plot And thus we may see that the Types of the ceremonial Law The ceremonial Types of cleansing especially of Priest and Sacrifice did typifie our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacrifice in procuring Gods Attonement Heb 9. 13. especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice were ordained to typifie the Law of Mediatorship and our moral justification by him Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for mans redemption let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies for in them as in a glasse they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption and therefore when Christ came into the world he said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in place of Types then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God by the doing of which will we are sanctified namely purged purified or cleansed from sin as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9. 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying see Ains in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all To cleanse men from sins meerly Ceremonial the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance Heb. 9. 13. and hence the Apostle infers in vers 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this namely in the super-excellency of this High-priest above the Legal-priest in vers 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood as vers 12. but in the super-â—xcellency of this High-priest and his sacrifice united personally as vers 14. How much more c. Suppose a Priest aâ— excellent had been found and also a Sacrifice as excellent in two distinct persons yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator but the admirable personal union of this High-priest and Sacrifice did comprise the act of one Mediator for so saith the Text he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit namely by his God-head and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament vers 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin And secondly hence it had vertue to confirm the Testament for the many as it is expressed in vers 15 16 17. Thirdly I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9. 27. with Gal. 4. 4 5. which lyes thus He shall confirm the Testament for the Many the last Seven that is to say in the very end of the last Seven which is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4. 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed there must of necessity be the death of the Testator for a Testament is confirmed and of force after men be dead it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives Heb. 9. 16 17. The next clause in Daniel is this And in the half of that Seven which is three years and a half namely in the end of this
righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 12. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and a little after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator because â—of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God 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 our guilt 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
27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this Text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. 1 Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may
see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 1â— It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 Heb. 9. 27 28 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these three Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numeriee and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would sain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not
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 I. 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. Aâ—â— 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 wrong 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 Psaâ— 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. Psal 32. 1. Kirkeroes 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 unjust 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 the 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 paines 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
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 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 carty 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 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
Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed righteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 5. 3. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the sinner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety â—s free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promised Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but
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 iâ— 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 sins 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 judicious and unpartial Reader 2 Consider the frame of Mr. Nortons Argument and me thinks the very naming of it should sufficiently shew the dangerousnesse of it Christ saith He was made sin for us as wee were made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ that is saith he hee was made sin by Gods judicial imputation namely a true sinner formally And so in like sort hee holds that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us to make a real change in our condition by making us formally righteous and thus by his comparative Argument our sins were really imputed to Christ to make a real change in his condition namely to make him a sinner formally by Gods judicial imputation that so God might in justice inflict upon him the essential punishment of Hell-torments Doth not the very repetition of this Argument plainly enough shew the dangerousnesse of it 3 Mr. Anthony Wotton shews that it is a palpable mistake to assert the imputation of our sins to Christ in the sense of Mr. Norton in Reconcil Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 4. and to the end of the Chapter of which I shall speak more by
Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apâ— Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capro Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech In his seven Candlesticks p. 35â— 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infirmities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sem and Japhet did Noahs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sinâ— And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Oâ—gen Melancthoâ— Bucer Calven Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In moralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his deaâ—h saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee
in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more â—eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Iâ—sti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Râ—m 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his 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 meer 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
merciful is as much as I will bee Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. Gods Attonement or Expiation and therefore this expression I will be merciful may as well bee translated I will bee pacified or I will be reconciled or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness and will remember their sins no more And saith Nehemiah 9. 17. Thou art a God of pardons gracious and merciful And hence it is plain that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or a means of Gods Attonement but it is plainly a true part thereof if it bee not the whole 4 This is yet further evident because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19. 14. 19. where it is used to express Gods forgiveness by his bearing of sin away but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful or pacified or reconciled but yet in vers 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Gods repentance towards sinners by forgiving and not punishing their sin as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God Repent of the evil to thy people but the Septuagint translate it be merciful or bee pacified or bee reconciled or bee propitious to the evill of thy people alluding in this expression to Gods Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where in type God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar more at large in Reply 9. 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof Psal 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. and therefore Gods forgiveness may well be called his merciful forgiveness or his reconciled forgiveness as Mr. Ainsworth doth open Gods forgiveness in Psal 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent but a concurrent part of Gods Reconciliation or of Gods Righteousnesse for Psal 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. though the terms be divers for I demand how else are wee made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ which was to bee reconciled to beleeving sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them And thus you see that these three terms Gods merciful forgiveness and his Reconciliation and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness do all con-note the same state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof and so forgiveness is not antecedent but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin to reconcile God withal and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinners justification by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering as the procuring cause of Gods reconciliation for it is often said in the Law that God ordained the Sin-offering to Lev. 6. 30. reconcile withal as in Lev. 6. 30. 2 Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices as well as the Sin-offering to procure Gods reconciliation by not imputing sin and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Attonement as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness as in Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. as I have shewed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Attonement called sacrifices of Righteousness but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them and that was their legal righteousness For the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh And hence the Apostle doth argue How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing sin and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness and therefore answerable to the types God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to bee our Burnt-offering our Peace-offering our Trespass-offering our Meat-offering and our Sin-offering as the perfection of all the rest For by his one offering once offered hee ended the use of all Trespass offerings and finished Sin offerings and made reconciliation for iniquity and so brought in or procured an everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9. 24. instead of their Dan. 9. 24. Ceremonial reconciliation which was their Ceremonial righteousness for Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee that is to say merciful forgiveness Dan. 9. 7 16. or reconciliation and in vers 16. O Lord according to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away But the Septuagint render it O Lord according to thy mercy let thine anger be turned away namely according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and beleeving sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness and Attonement Let thine anger bee turned away and justifie us to bee thy people by not imputing our sins to us and in this sense the penitent Publican said O Lord be merciful to me a sinner and so hee went away justified by Gods merciful attonement and forgiveness which was the very thing he prayed for 9 Sin till it is forgiven doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ it continues the enmity but then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then God is at rest and is pacified and quieted And for this cause all Sacrifices of Attonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah Exod. 22. 18 25 41. Levit. 1. 9. Numb 28. 6 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40 41. But the Septuagint translate it A sweet savour of rest and their phrase the Apostle followeth saying Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a smell of sweet savour Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broyled in the fire materially considered was no sweet smell but formally considered as they were ordained by Gods positive Covenant to procure his Attonement and as they were types of Christs Sacrifice so only are they said to bee of a sweet-smelling savour because they procure his pardon and so they quiet Gods Spirit as sweet smels do quiet and rejoyce our senses therefore Gods forgiveness is not an
antecedent or means of Attonement but a concurrent part of Attonement These Reasons besides what others may bee added do sufficiently prove That Gods gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice is not an antecedent but a true part if it bee not the whole of Gods Reconciliation And secondly These Reasons do prove That it is Gods righteousness to grant his reconciliation to all beleeving sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice for their formal and eternal righteousness And thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons conjectures that reconciliation is but a consequent of justification is fallen to the ground 8 This Righteousness of God being thus explained It necessarily follows That such as hold Gods Righteousness in being reconciled to sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice to bee the formality of a sinners righteousness must needs deny the imputation of Christs moral righteousness to bee the formal cause of a sinners justification SECT VI. BUt Mr. Norton in p. 268. Doth damn this formal cause for Heresie and to make good his charge he cites Rom. 5. 19. and Phil. 3. 9. intending thereby to prove that the active righteousness of Christ to the moral Law is imputed to us for our formal righteousness and justification Reply 2. I have but a little before given the true sense of Rom. 5. 19. in a differing sense from the point that Mr. Norton would prove by it And secondly I will now examine his exposition of Phil. 3. 9. And truly I cannot but wonder that he Phil. 3. 9. should cite it to prove the righteousness of Christ as our Surety to the moral Law seeing there is no righteousness of Christ expressed in this Text but the righteousness expressed is plainly called the righteousness of God namely of God the Father just as I have opened the phrase in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and therefore this righteousness of God in Phil. 3. 9. must have the same sense as I have expounded it to have in 2 Cor. 5. 21. And thus you see that hitherto Mr. Nortons proofs of Heresie have failed his expectation and on the contrary they do make directly against him But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. To say that pardon of sin is righteousness it self is to confound the effect with the cause Reply 3. If a meer natural Philosopher had said so it had been the less wonder but that a learned Divine should say so especially after so much light both from German and English Divines that have taken pains to make it evident that Gods gracious pardon is a sinners righteousness is to my apprehensions somewhat strange This righteousness of God saith P. Martyr as I have noted him a little before is far distant from the righteousness that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their sacrifices testifie But saith he this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness Hence I infer that if Mr. Norton will but submit his reason to that peculiar way of justification which God hath constituted onely for beleeving sinners by his Covenant with Christ and by his positive Laws then he may soon see that God hath ordained a righteousness for beleeving sinners by his reconciliation onely and not by the righteousness of the moral Law as the principles of natural Reason is apt to judge for the principles of natural reason cannot think of a righteousnesse for sinners by positive Laws because it resteth in Gods will only to make such Laws effectual for that purpose Secondly This way of making sinners righteous is lively typified and exemplified to us by the Jews legal justifications as I have in part noted a little before and also in page 110 but because it is of concerument I will speak a little more fully to this point It pleased God of his good will and pleasure to covenant with Abraham that his seed should be his peculiar Church and people in the land of Canaan and in that respect he was pleased to set up the Tabernacle of his Divine presence among them and set Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein 2 Chron. 23. 19. And when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousness called the gates of Justice saith Ainsworth because onely the just and clear might enter therein and so ver 20. and in Jer. 50. 7. The Temple is called the Habitation of Justice because of their ceremonial Justice No unclean person on pain of death might enter therein Levit. 15. 21. and it was once a year cleansed with the blood of the Sin-offering Levit 16. 16 20. Neither might any dare to have communion with God in feasting on the holy flesh in the holy City in their legal uncleannesse Levit. 7. 20. and 22. 3 9 And to make them and to keep them clean God gave them not onely his Moral Law with prohibitions of all that was contrary thereto but also he gave them divers other positive Laws and Ordinances for their legal justifications from all their ceremonial sins yea and from their moral sins also Levit. 5. 4 6. as to the outward man when they were to come before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or when they were to feast with God on the holy flesh and in case any did presume to come in their legal uncleannesse before they were qualified according to the preparation of the Sanctuary they were threatned to be cut off as some of Ephraim were 2 Chron. 30. 18 19. Exod. 12. 15 19. Levit. 7. 20 21 25 27. Numb 19. 20. And sometimes such persons are threatned with death as I noted above from Levit. 15. 31. And for fear of Gods displeasure by transgressing these positive Ordinances all Israel in general Lev. 15. 31. Sacrifices and washings were ordained for their typical justification under the first Covenant from their ceremonial sins Exod. 22. 31. were exactly careful to observe these works of the Law called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. in relation to Heb. 8. 7 8. for their justification when they were to come into Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or to feast on the holy flesh and for their exact care herein the whole Nation though many times there were but few that were truly godly among them were called men of holiness Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. Exod. 19. 6. and saith Ainsworth in Gen. 17. 12. By three things did Israel enter into Covenant 1. By Circumcision 2. By Baptism 3. By Sacrifice And their Levitical cleansing and worship is called the first Covenant as I have noted it also in p. 118. That had Ordinances or Justifications of divine service Heb. 9. 1 and they are called carnal justifications
is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justification with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their uncircumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8 though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14 there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Moses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not
for to justifie them but to describe and paint Christ unto them Mark That he makes the word Law and the righteousness thereof to relate to their Ceremonies Ibidem They go about to establish their own righteousness and are not obedient to the righteousness that commeth of God which is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve This is the coherence between the third verse and Rom. 9. 31. And from this coherence it follows in this fourth verse That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness Secondly P. Martyr on Rom. 9. 31. saith of the former interpretation thus Rom. 9. 31. In his Com. pl par 2. p. 580. Indeed I dislike it not and in his Common places he doth expound the word Law and the righteousness thereof not as Mr. Norton doth of the moral Law but of the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect chiefly to the ceremonial Law and And see Wotton de reconc peccat par l. 1. c. 19. Mr. Wotton treads in his steps and Vindiciae fidei cites several other Orthodox to that Opinion par 2. p. 160. Thirdly Grotius expounds the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. Grotius in his war and peace p 24. Rom. 3. 27. of the Law of the carnal commandement quite contrary to Mr. Nortons exposition for Mr. Norton doth expound this word Law in p. 177. and 189. of the Law of Nature given to Adam in his innocency but according to Grotius and according to truth it must be expounded of the Law of Works given to the Jews for their legal justification from their ceremonial sins when they appeared in Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary for it is most evident that God made a Covenant of Works with the Jews for their outward Justification when they came into his holy Sanctuary as well as a Covenant of Grace in Christ for their moral justification in his presence both here and at the day of judgement But in time namely when the Prophets ceased the carnal Jews abused this Covenant of Works as they did the brazen Serpent by trusting to it as well for their moral as for their ceremonial justification in the sight of God And against this sort of justification by works doth the Apostle Paul dispute in his Epistle to the Romans and to the Galatians c. Behold say the Hebrew Doctors it is said in the Law ye shall keep my Statutes and all my Judgements and do them Our wise men have said That keeping and doing must be applied to the Statutes See Ains in Lev. 5. 15. as well as unto the Judgements c. Now the Judgements they are Commandements the reason or meaning whereof is manifest and the good that commeth by doing of them is known in this world as the forbidding to rob and to shed blood and the commandement to honor Father and Mother But the Statutes or Ordinances are commandements the reason whereof is not known c. And all the sacrifices every one generally are Statutes or Ordinances and our wise men have said that for the services of the Sacrifices the world doth continue for by doing the Statutes and the Judgements righteous men are made worthy of life in the world to come and the Law setteth the commandement of the statute first saying and yee shall keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man do he shall live in them Lev. 18. 5. By this and such like testimonies which might be cited from the Hebrew Doctors we may see as in a glass how the carnal Jews understood the word Law namely of all the Oeconomy of Moses but chiefly and principally of the ceremonial Statutes and Ordinances and in that respect they put their trust in their outward observation of the said Ordinances which were indeed given them for their outward justification and by this kind of righteousness Paul was made alive until God opened his eyes to see his sinful condition by the spiritual application of the Law to his conscience Phil. 3. 9. and then from the typical he saw his inward justification And secondly This is worth marking as I mentioned before that in their legal justification no actual holiness was put upon them but onely their ceremonial sins of uncleanness were purged from them and that was their justice or justification when they stood before him in his Sanctuary for it is said That the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh but that kind of sanctification was obtained by their ceremonial purifyings which did procure Gods attonement in forgiving sin and no other Sanctification was ordained for their legal Justification Natural Philosophers saith Peter Martyr cannot be perswaded that the absolution of God procured by sacrifice did make men righteous and therefore they did not call it our righteousness P. Martyr spake these words in his last explanation of Justification and therefore though his former expressions do somewhat differ it is not so much to be stood on as on what he saith here in his last meditations but you may see that Peter Martyr held according to the ceremonial types that the pacifying of God and the procuring of his attonement by the sacrifice of Christ is a sinners righteousness I say this way of justification God was pleased to ordaine by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant with Christ which was also typified by his positive Covenant of Works with the Jews 1 It was his voluntary Covenant with Christ that upon his undertaking to make his soul a sacrifice for sin he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners by not imputing their sins to them that is to say he would justifie them from their sins by his gracious forgiveness and therefore it is 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 rule in all natural causes positâ caulâ 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
that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousneâ—s 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 Ezod 30. 10. and the Ram of Attonement Numb 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by Gods voluntary Covenant to procure Gods Attonement and Justification from all their legal sins even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by Gods attonement and in relation to their typical use the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Attonement Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious formal causes for the procuring of Gods attonement for all our moral sins and so consequently for our moral justification and this is most cleer because the Apostle doth define Gods reconciliation to sinners by his not imputing their sins to them 2 Cor. 5. 19. for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner but when God doth not impute sin then there is no more jar but reconciliation with God And therefore the sin of Attonement which was offered on Reconciliation-day is called by the Septuagint the Purgation of sins because it procured Gods Attonement by which only sin is purged away Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ Heb. 1. 3. namely as it is the meritorious cause of Gods reconciliation whereby our sins are fully purged The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signifie to cover pacifie or appease noting thereby the meritorious cause Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to bee pacified doth note the formal cause It doth also signifie to satisfie or recompence noting thereby the meritorious cause 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to bee satisfied doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased satisfied or reconciled and so in Psal 85. 1 2. Lord thou hast been favourable or well-pleased with thy land Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people and covered all their sin These three several phrases are Synonimas and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation needs not now to be disputed because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward And hence it follows that Christs sacrifice may well bee caled a Sacrifice of Attonement because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Attonement and because it was ordained to procure Gods Attonement and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Attonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. not only because they were offered in faith as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness because they did legally compleat a sinners righteousness in respect of his ceremonial sins and so also they did exemplifie how a sinners righteousness should be compleated by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins sacrifices must be performed in righteousness that is to say without spot or wrinkle for then they were offered in righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplifie 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
Gods anger and so removed the curse from the Land after that Gods justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia as the sacrifice that was ordained to attone God for sin was called sin So then the true reason why the Judges were admonished not to let his carkass that was hanged continue hanging all night but to bury him the same day to cover and hide his carkass in the earth from further publick shame and ignominy because he had already satisfied Justice by hanging on a tree to be gazed on as long as the day light made him a spectacle which at some time of the year might be till it was near midnight where the natural day endeth So then the defect or want in the Hebrew Text may be supplied by any word or words that do explain the true sense as well as by is As thus thou shalt in any wise bury him the same day for he that is hanged to be gazed on as long as the day gives light to be gazed on hath appeased God and born the curse from the land and thereby he hath made attonement for the curse and so procured Gods favor to the Land And it is most evident by three remarkable examples that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure attonement to the land First The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ring-leaders of them that had coupled them to Baal Peor and to hang them up before the Lord against the Sun Numb 25. 4. Numb 25. 4. 1 It must be done before the Lord namely openly by the publick Judges for God is still with them in the cause and judgement 2 Chron. 19. 6. Deut. 17. 1. Psa 82. 1. 2 It must be done against the Sun namely in the open view of all persons as long as the Sun did give any light upon the face of the earth and because Phineas did execute judgement upon some of the chief of these sinners therefore in ver 13. he is said to make attonement for Israel Secondly David commanded the seven sons of Saul to be hanged up before the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 9. namely by the sentence of justice 2 Sam. 21. 9. but the Gibeonites said to David in v. 6. We will hang them up to the Lord namely to appease his fierce anger against the land and in that respect their hanging is said in ver 3. to make attonement and to this sense the Chalde paraphrase doth render the sense of Deu. 21. 23. for because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged namely to appease his wrath And all that are hanged before the Lord that is to say openly by the sentence of these Judges are said also to be hanged up to the Lord to appease his wrath and so both phrases do demonstrate the same thing and thus to do Justice and Judgement upon sinners is more acceptable to the Lord to attone his wrath than sacrifice Pro. 21. 3. Thirdly Achan was a cursed person in his death though his dead body was not hanged but burnt with fire because he had sinned in the cursed thing namely in the consecrated gold which God had cursed to any that did purloin it and therefore God said unto Joshua I will be with you no more except yee destroy that cursed person Josh 7. 12. For Israel hath transgressed the Covenant which I commanded them ver 11. But why doth he say that Israel transgressed seeing Achan alone sinned in a secret manner The Answer is Because it was Gods will to make such a supream voluntary Law and Covenant with all Israel that if but one man sinned in the excommunicate thing it should involve all Israel under the curse Josh 6. 18. untill they had purged themselves by the use of means to find out the transgressor but as soon as they had found out the transgressor and had executed Justice and buried his burnt body under a heap of stones the Lord was appeased to the people and turned from his fierce wrath Josh 7. 25 26. and so the Camp was cleansed Hence I do once more conclude that the onely true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was not because else the Land would be ceremonially defiled as Mr. Norton doth argue but because one days open hanging on a tree as long as the light did last to be gazed on did satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie his wrath and therefore the Judges are admonished not to let his body hang all night but in any case to bury him the same day because he that is thus hanged hath born the curse that else would have fallen on the land and the Jews say That as soon as a Malefactor had satisfied justice by his See Trap on Gal. 3. 13. death then the tree whereon he was hanged the sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed must be buried with them that no evill memorial of them might remain to say this was the tree sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed But still this must bee remembred that in some extraordinary cases God permitted the Magistrates to let some notorious Malefactors to hang on a Tree not only for one day but also for many dayes together and yet the land was not defiled but cleansed thereby of which see more in n. 8. 6 Having now finished the former reason why the person hanged must be buried the same day namely because in the ordinary course of justice one dayes hanging on a tree did satisfie Gods justice and so remove the curse from the land as it is expressed in this sentence He that is hanged hath born the curse of God And at the end of this sentence the Geneva and Tindal have made a full stop and the other Translations have made a colon or a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of
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 2 â—im 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 the second Adam and publick head of his Elect Church as Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 312. hath rightly expounded the word Seed in Gal. 3. 16. and his reasons there alleged may serve to prove the like sense of the word Seed in Gen. 3. 15. Moreover God told the Devil that hee might look to himself as well as hee could that this seed of the deceived woman should by his perfect obedience to the Laws of the Combate conquer him in all his designs and at last make his soul a most perfect obedient sacrifice by which perfection of his obedience both in his Combate and Sacrifice he should break in peeces his first grand Head-plot for his first grand Head-plot was to intice Adam to eat the forbidden fruit contrary to Gods voluntary positive prohibition and thereby to inwrap him and all his natural posterity into the same spiritual death of original sin But yet for all this God told the Devil that hee would raise up a seed from this deceived sinful woman that should conquer him by his most perfect and exact obedience to another voluntary positive Law that
which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgeâ—â—â—â— To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they misâ— it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and Heb. 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and at last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time tugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. And thus instead of entring
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 Trâ—p 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 Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here
concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Joh. 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonab had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijah also had a great desire to dye and yet hee had not power to dye and therefore he prayed unto God saying O Lord take away my vital soul 1 King 19. 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself when the appointed hour was come to make his soul a sacrifice Fifthly Saith Christ I have the same power to lay down my vital soul that I have to take it up again and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life with my power which I have to take it up again This saith Origen afore cited neither Moses nor
therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Joh. 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10 compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of savour Heb. 10. 10. The woâ—d Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness namely into Gods gracious favour again as Adam was in his innocency And saith Baxter to Molivaeus p. 181. It is the same act of God that is called constitutive justification and pardon of sin so far as Justification is taken as comprehending onely the restoring of us to the happiness that we fell from But this I perceive is a Riddle to Mr. Norton for in p. 209. he saith to be sinless is not enough to make a sinner righteous but if he will but search better into the Ceremonial Types he may see that it is Gods forgiveness from his attonement procured by legal washings and by the blood of beasts by which all Israel were sanctified or made a holy people again as the legal Heb. 9