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 17 18 because I lay down my soul and take it again Joh 10. 17. No man taketh it from me I lay it down of my self ver 18. The Son of man came to serve and to give his soul for the ransom of many Mat. 20. 28. He made his soul a sin Isa 53. 10. and powred out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. Thirdly Saith Fulgentius The whole man Christ laid down his soul when his soul departed dying on the Cross Ad Transi li. 3. In this sentence you see that Fulgentius speaks of two souls in Christ First Saith he Christ laid down his vital soul And then secondly saith he his immortal soul departed dying on the Cross Fourthly The soul that died in Christ for our redemption was this vital soul for this kind of soul hath its seat in The death of satisfaction was by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death the blood Gen. 9. 4. and when Christ shed his blood this soul of his was powred out and then his immortal soul departed and this was typified by the vital soul of the beast that was in the blood of the Levitical Sacrifices in Lev. 17. 11. and see Ains also in Deut. 12. 23. the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make attonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh attonement for the soul this I noted in the Dialogue pag. 94. and this positive ceremonial type was given to the Jews to exemplifie their attonement and redemption by the shedding of the vital soul that was in the blood of Christ and our Saviour did confirm this to be a truth at his last Supper saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you and for the many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. And he was the Mediator of the New Testament by this death Heb. 9. 15. And his death in ver 15 16 17. is exemplified by the bodily death of men whose death doth make the legacies of their testament to be valid and so in like sort until Christ had powred out his vital soul his Legacies of the New Testament were not confirmed but as soon as that act was done they were all confirmed for the many Dan. 9. 27. And by his death he is said to make peace or attonement Col. 1. 20. as Aarons incense did in Numb 16. 44. See Ains and by which we have redemption Ephes 1. 7. and by which we are ransomed Matth. 20. 28. It is this vital blood of Christ that cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. This vital blood of Christ was it that was ordained to procure Gods everlasting attonement for all our moral sins even as the blood of Buls c. was ordained to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins Heb. 9. 12 13 14 15 16. Heb. 10. Fifthly saith P. Martyr Because blood is the life God P. Martyr in his com pl. par 2. p. 581. would signifie that sin is not purged by sacrifice unless it were by death Sixthly Mr. Carlile doth thus paraphrase on Lev. 17. 11. I have appointed the blood to be an expiation and purgation for you even for your sins for it is this blood that purgeth you Seventhly From the springing up of corn after it is dead in the earth Christ brings a similitude of his death and of the fruit of his death Joh. 12. 24. None that I can find interpret this death of any other death but the true bodily death and sacrifice of Christ Eighthly Tindal saith thus Paul concludeth in Heb. 9. 16 17. Tindals works p. 462. that Christ must needs have dyed saying That wheresoever a Testament is there must the death of the Testament-maker go between or else the Testament is not ratified and sure But saith he Righteousness and Remission of sins in Christs blood is the New Testament whereof hee is the Mediator Ergo The Testament-maker must needs have dyed And saith he he must or it behoved him to die for he took our very mortal nature for the same decreed council saying It behoved that the Son of man must die Joh. 12. Tindal laies the whole weight of all the blessings of the new Covenant on the bodily death of Christ he makes no mention of the spirituall death of Christs soul And saith he in pag. 257. The offerings of Christs body and blood is the onely satisfaction for our sins And saith he There is no other way to salvation but by Christs death and passion and he speaks this of his bodily death And saith he whosoever goeth unto God and unto forgiveness of sins or salvation by any other way than this the same is an Heretick Here Tindal opposeth his judgement of Heresie to Mr. Nortons judgement Ninethly We die a double death saith Chrysostom as I formerly cited him therefore we must look for a double Resurrection But Christ saith he dyed but one kind of death therefore he rose but one kind of Resurrection Adam dyed both in body and soul he dyed to sin and to nature c. The first is the death of the soul the other is the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishments To us men there is a double death and therefore we must have a double Resurrection To Christ there was but one kind of death for he sinned not and that one kind of death was for us he owed no kind of death for he was not subject to sin and so not to death Tenthly Theodoret in Dialogue 3. saith How could the soul of our Saviour having an immortal nature and not touched with the least spot of sin be possibly taken with the hook of death In these words he doth plainly and fully deny the spiritual death of Christs immortal soul and therefore he
descended as it were a Dove Matth. 3. 16. somewhat resembling a Dove So the Manna was like Coriander-seed in shape and quantity but not in colour 9 Christopher Carlile in his Descent page 46. saith Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood 10 So John Frith the Martyr saith thus to Sir Thomas Moore See his Ans to Sir Tho. 〈◊〉 p. 34. as it is printed with Tindals works Christ did not only weep but feared so sore that he sweat like drops of blood running down upon the earth which was more than to weep Now saith he If I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory Forsooth he that should so answer would bee laughed to scorn of all the world as hee were well worthy Wherefore was it then Vetily even for the fear of death as it plainly appeareth after for he prayed unto his Father saying My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me Mat. 26. 38 39. So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh And saith he the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah that hee wept for fear of Death and not of Purgatory In these words you see that Friths judgement was That Christs Agony was for fear not of a spiritual but of a corporal death 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground and speaking of Christs last Supper hee saith thus The fear of death was the same hour upon him neither slept hee any more after but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples into the place where he was taken to abide his Persecuters where also he sweat water and blood of very agony conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying In his Agony he sweat drops like blood These five last Authors you see are not for sweating of perfect blood though Tindal say hee sweat water and blood yet that is far from pure blood and farther from clods of blood 2 This is farther remarkable that Tindal and Frith do make the fear of his bodily death in the words cited to bee the cause of his Agony 3. This is still farther remarkable that neither of these two have a word in all their writings that hee suffered any other death but a bodily death though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresie 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by mee cannot examine the Quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox than the sense of the Dialogue Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons unjust prejudice of the Dialogue for the Author of the Dialogue cites their sense to his sense which is so clear and manifest that it stares him in the face and yet their words cited in the sense of the Dialogue he saith is orthodox and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresie Is not this plain partiality to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox and to condemn it in another for heresie And saith hee Friths other writings call to have it so namely to mean it according to Mr. Norton Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith and to the Reader to make Frith of his judgement the words of Frith which I have truly cited him do cry shame upon him for saying so and in all his writings hee makes the death of Christ to bee no other but a true bodily death 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith namely to bee sorrowful unto death and for the exceeding grief thereof to powre forth a bloody sweat 13 Damasen saith thus Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions for he assumed the whole man and all that pertained to man except sin Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power and whatsoever entred into mans life through the condemnation of sin namely of Adams sin as hunger thirst weakness labour weeping corruption shunning of death fear agony whence sweat and drops of blood These things saith he are in all men by nature Christ therefore took all these unto him that he might sanctifie them all Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature and above nature According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when hee permitted his flesh to indure that which was proper to it Above nature because nature in him did never go before his will for there was nothing forced in him but all things voluntary when hee would hee hungred when he would hee thirsted when hee would hee feared and when hee would hee dyed From this speech of Damasen touching Christs Passion and Agony in the Garden we see he held 1 That shunning of Death Fear Agony whence sweat and drops of blood which are in all men by nature and therefore saith he Christ took all these unto him that hee might sanctifie them all 2 That these were in Christ not only according to nature but above nature because nature in him did never go before his will 3 That nothing in him was forced therefore hee was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God Conclusion When the fulness of time was come that the seed of the woman Christ Jesus was to be bruised and peirced in the foot-soals with an ignominious torturing death by Satan and his instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane but must leave the humane nature to its self to manage this conflict in which conflict he was to manifest his true humane infirmities and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seise upon him he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy and then he said unto Peter James and John My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death or it is surrounded with sorrow that is to say Every part of my body wherein I have my vital soul is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death by such a malignant enemy as is armed with power and authority from God to execute it on me and I do here manifest my true humane nature and the infirmities of it that you may record it to all posterity that I have took part with them that for fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage that they may be assured I am a merciful High-priest and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree for then it might be doubted whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am but in the highest degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution
that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joynec ' to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitted by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death bue a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. The quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christ obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Arrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen
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 96 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 Promisess By which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grâ—pe 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 maintain it p. 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as be did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordamed a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfuâ—â— ness to Christ in the very time when he diâ— execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christ suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they have any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult p. 77 Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply 24. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential tormonts of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore be did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guiss of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then his nature as it was the fountain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then be must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the bigbest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by nature generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because be voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can be he said to be our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89. 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p. 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration
before he could make his death to be a Sacrifice of Reconciliation p. 92 309 CHAP. VII IT must needs be but a meer fantasie to bold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in sull Torments as long as they remain in this world p 105 If the humane nature of Christ had partaken of the essential joyes of heaven before his death as Mr. Norton holds then doubtless be had been confirmed against the sufferings of death p 107 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 107. Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 29 30 34 that Gods declarative glory is not essential to God Mr. Norton doth often fall from his foundation principle which is That Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell to that which is equivalent p. 107 113 72 The Metaphorical sense of Sheol and Hades is opened p. 108 It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret the same word in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell-torments and then secondly To signifie only the grave p. 109 * Add this as a Marginal Note to p. 109. In this Mr. Norton doth contradict his own rule in p. 76. which is That one and the same word especially not being typical is capable but of one sense in the same place The word Psuche for soul in the New Testament is most often put for the vital soul p. 111 320 CHAP. VIII MR. Norton doth often leave the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty because he doth one while affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse and only that and another while that he suffered only that which was equivalent p. 113 1â—7 72 291 After Adams Fall outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes and to the Judicial Ordinances is called the First Covenant of Works p. 11 8 p. 16 The word Law in Rom. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton bolds because it alludes chiefly to the Ceremonial Law p. 119 p. 238 26 Add this Note to p. 121. 1. 2. The Decalogue was given to faln man as a Covenant of Grace and therefore it requires spiritual obedience to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Ainsworth on Num. 6. 12. faith One little pollution of the Nazarile at unawares did nullifie many dayes purity For faith he the Law requireth a perfect observation and curseth him that continueth not in doing all things commanded Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 29. 12. Ja. 2 10. But this is to be noted that if the said Law had not comprehended the Covenant of grace under it it had not so cursed the non-observers And faith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19. the life which Mofes set before them was by faith in Christ c. And see more what he faith in Dâ—uâ— 6. 1. and 7. 17. And see what Rutherfurd on the Covenant faith in p. 62. of the better Covenant The justice of the Law is sometimes satisfied by payment in kind and sometimes by that which is equivalent p. 121 256 202 167 33 Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the Covenant made with Adam as Mr. Norton holds but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Persons in Trinity from Eternity namely that he should ossame the seed of the deceived Womon in personal union and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmitieâ— â—o combate with Satan for the victory by continuing constant in his obedience under all Satans ill usage and that at last in that perfect obedience he should make his vital soul a sacrifice and the Father covenanted that his death so performed should procure his reconciliation to all the Elect p. 122 p. 9 130 162 167 55 96 182 183 256 308 CHAP. IX THe ground of satisfaction or of that price that merits Gods reconciliation to the Elect is from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant p. 130. 139 55 82 83 96 102 122 257 Perfect ohedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenant and Combate do merit the prize p. 130 * Add this Note to p. 130. When a prize is merited by an exact and righteous observation of the Laws of the Combate such a prize so obtained may well be called the Prize or the Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judge will give and cannot deny to the lawful Victor 2 Tim. 4 8. But Christ was such a Righteous Victor in his 〈…〉 bate with Satan notwithstanding his ill usage to distur 〈…〉 patience and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly That Christ conquered Satan by Rightteousness as I have noted some of their speeches in Ch. 16. The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self p. 131 * Add this Note to p. 132. A Covenant from the voluntary Cause doth never yeeld to be over-ruled by the supreme compulsary Cause as Mr. Norton holds as I have often instanced in the Trial of Masteries Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of Satisfaction p. 136 Christs Sacrifice is called a Sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods aâ—gry face and procure his Attonement to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners p. 137 191 251 252 259 * Add this Note to p. 1. â—7 at Heb. 9. 14. Seeing the Altar was a type of the God-head of Christ the fire of the Altar must by the like reason be also a type of the God-head of Christ And therefore when Isaiah cryed out I am undone because mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts namely Christ in his glory as John expounds it Joh. 12. 41. then faith he One of the Zeraphims came slying unto me having a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from the Altar and he laid it upon my mouth and said Lo tâ—â—â— hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged Isa 6. 6 7. or as the Hebrew is thy sin is expiated by Attonement procured as Lev. 1. 4. and Rom. 3. 25. this fire was a type of the God-head of Christ which sanctified the offering Mat. 23. 19. Heb. 9. 14. 21 24. for Attonement to his lips The end why God declared his justice to be satisfied in the faid obedience of Christ from his Mercy-seat was first That he might be just according to his Covenant made with Christ And secondly That he might be just according to his New Covenant made with the Elect And thirdly That he might be the Justifier of beleeving sinners p. 139 As the Greek word Dicaios Just is put for one that is pious and merciful so the Hebrew word Chesed Mer 〈…〉 is put for one that is pious and just p. 141 CHAP. X. THe death of Christ could not be a penal death from Gen. 2 17. because God doth threaten none with a penal death neither in that Text nor any other but sinners
perfections it was not sutable to be so given to him 3 There is not the like Reason why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the moral Law of nature as there is why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the Decalogue for the Decalogue was given as a Covenant of grace and therefore all the types of grace in Christ do appertain to it by vertue Gods positive Command which forbids many things that are indifferent in their own nature 4 The moral Law of nature did not injoyn Adam to observe every seventh day as a day of rest as the Decalogue doth 5 The fourth Command and some others in the Decalogue are partly of a moral Constitution and partly of a positive See Trap on Mat. 〈◊〉 p 132. Dr. Ames in Medul c. 15. Sect. 12. vindiciae legis p. 62. 148. 213. As for example to observe some time for Gods special worship is moral but the determination of every seventh day is positive 6 The moral Law of nature did not require faith in Christ nor repentance for sin as the Decalogue doth and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings c. must needs belong to it Seeing then there is so great a difference This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue Reason 2. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin If Adams eating had been a sin against the moral Law then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating against the moral Law then the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it had been a moral sin before her act of eating for the Text saith It was a desire to her eyes and she saw it was good for food and a Tree to be desired c. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxime of all that expound the moral Law that it binds the inward man as well as the outward and so saith our Saviour He that look◠upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart Math. 5. 28. And in that respect Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we in Adam first sinned in soul properly And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons Divinity that there was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating And then her Adam sinned not in soul untill he had first sinned in body act of eating had not been her first sin as usually it is esteemed and called and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm In the day thou eatest thereof and not in the day thou desirest to eat shalt thou dye the death Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food and that it was a desire to her eyes yet if then she had but stayed her desire here and had gone no further she had not sinned For such positive Laws as this do not bind the inward man but the outward man only 1 Take this Instance If a Jew had desired to eat Swines flesh to satisfie his hunger because it was good food by creation and yet had forborn the act of eating he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purifie himself by washing in regard of his said inward desire to eat 2 Take another Instance It was a Ceremonial sin by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corps because it defiled the outward man only and not because it defiled the conscience for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience at least upon some of his near relations not only to desire but really to touch his dead Corps and to carry it to its burial 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford The Law of God because it is holy In Christs dying at Asser 5. p. 141. and spiritual doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motions of our soul and the Law of nature but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God such as was the Lords Command that Christ should dye for sinners is not required in the Law of God If Adam saith he had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit and had not eaten there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil And at Asser 4. page 140. he saith thus A conditional and submissive desire though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God is no sin nor doth the Law positive require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire Gods Command to Abraham saith he to kill his only Son and to offer him a sacrifice to God was a meer positive Command for it is not a command of the Law of Nature nor any other then positive for the Father to kill the Son yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love commanded also in the Law of nature to save his Sons life and doth desire that he may still live this desire and inclination though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God is no sin because the fifth Commandement grounded on the Law of nature did command it And Christs desire that the Cup might passe from him was Mat. 26. 39. The Command of God for Christ to dye was not a moral but a positive Command no sin Mat. 26. 39. Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command as Mr. Norton holds but a positive command and that command saith he did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversly propounded but at thirdly saith he the Father bargains by way of work or hire or wages to give a seed to his Son Es 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his Seed and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue affirmeth That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life was a moral Command and that Christs obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law in page 57. c. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him yet in this he is point blank against him These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws do prove that Adam sinned not in soul but in body only at first by his
actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zanchy Tract Theol c 4. de peccato originall the body is corrupt it resisteth the soul and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning obeyeth the inclination thereof and is governed by it and therefore hence it follows First That Adams sin was not a sin against the moral Law for there is no sin against the moral Law properly till the soul consent Secondly Hence it follows That the guilt of Adams bodily sin was not imputed to his soul till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses Bâ—t the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found
was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us with out some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent â—and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
from that death in Gen. 2. 17. must all the Scriptures have reference that speak of a bodily death 7 Hence it is evident that bodily death was not at first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin but as an immediate effect and punishment of original sin and this Rom. 5. 12. 1â— is further evident by Rom. 5. 12. As by one man namely by one mans disobedience as it is explained in verse 19. sin entred into the world namely original sin and death by sin namely a bodily death by original sin And the matter is yet more plain by vers 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams trangression that is to say Death reigned over Infants from Adam to Moses for their original sin before ever they had sinned actually after the similitude of Adams Transgression and saith Paul in vers 21. Sin namely original sin reigned unto death Hence it follows that the wages of Adams first sin was death in sin and the wages of hiâ— original sin was a bodily death only to beleevers and eternal death to all unbeleevers Rom. 6. 23. And it is evident that this is an ancient orthodox Tenet that bodily death did first enter into the world by original sin Fulgentius de incar gratia Christi ch 12. saith Except the death of the soul had gone before by sin the death of the body had never followed after as a punishment and saith he in Chap. 13. Our flesh is born with the punishment of death and the pollution of sin and of young children he saith By what justice is an infant subjected to the wages of sin if there be no uncleannesse of sin in him And saith Prosper de promiss praedict part 1. c. 5. The punishment of sin which Adam the root of mankind received by Gods sentence saying Earth thou art and to earth thou shalt return Gen. 3. 19. and transmitted to his posterity as to his branches the Apostle saith entred into the world by one mans sin and so ranged over all men And Origen as I find him cited by Dr. Willet saith You may call the corporal death a shadow of the other namely a shadow See Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Quest 21. of our spiritual death in sin that wheresoever that invadeth the other doth also necessarily follow And Theophiluâ— Reason doth conclude as much By the sin of Adam saith he sin and death invaded the world namely by Adams first sin original sin invaded the world and then bodily death invaded the world by means of original sin And saith Peter Martyr It is much to be marvelled at how P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. the Pelagians can deny original sin in Infants seeing they see they daily dye And saith Maxentius in libello fidei c. 3. We beleeve that not onely the death of the body which is the punishment of sin but also that the sting of death which is sin entred into the world and the Apostle testifieth that sin and death went over all men And saith Bullenger in Decad. 3. Ser. 3. By disobedience sin entred into the world and by sin death diseases and all the mischiefes in the world Many other Orthodox Writers do confirm this for a cleer truth That God inflicted bodily death on mans nature in general as a punishment of original sin now if it were inflicted on man as a punishment of original sin then it was not threatned as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in Gen. 2. 17. And the Hebrew Doctors as well as Christian Writers understand the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. of death in sin and they make bodily death to be the immediate effect of it 1 By the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Rabby Moses Ben Mamony understandeth a spiritual death that is to say the See Duplessis in the Truenesse of Religion ch 27. death of the soul wounded with sin and so forsaken of her life which is God And other Hebrew Doctors say that bodily death is the effect of original sin Unto this world say the Hebrew Rabbins cited by Ains in Gen. 3. 19. there cleaveth the secret filthinesse of the Serpent which came upon Eve and because of that filthinesse death is come upon Adam and his seed And saith Ainsworth in Gen. 3. 15. The mystery of original sin and thereby death over all and of deliverance by Christ Rab. Menachem on Lev. 25. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words So long as the spirit of uncleannesse is not taken away out of the world the souls that come down into this world must needs dye for to root out the power of uncleannesse out of the world and to consume the same and all this is because of the Decree which was decreed for the uncleannesse and filthinesse which the Serpent brought upon Eve From these Testimonies it is evident that the ancient Hebrew Doctors held bodily death to be the immediate effect of original sin and they held original sin to be a spiritual death and to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin Chrysostome also saith We dye a double death therefore we must look for a double resurrection Christ dyed but one kind Châ—ys against Drunkards and of the Resurrection of death therefore he rose but one kind of resurrection Adam saith he dyed body and soul First he dyed to sin And secondly to nature In what day soever ye eat of the Tree said God ye shall dye the death that very day did not Adam dye in which he did eat but he then dyed to sin and long after to nature The first is the death of the soul the other the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishment To us men there is a double death and therefore we must have a double resurrection To Christ there was but one kind of death for he sinned not and that one kind of death was for us he owed no kind of death for he was not subject to sin and so not to death In these words we see that Chrysostome held that Adam first dyed to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly to nature long after his death in sin This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true substance in the Dialogue in page 10. c. and from that Exposition I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead for our redemption and if this Exposition which I have now inlarged be sound and according to the Context as I beleeve it is then the inference that I made is right and good But I confesse that upon the receit of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition I was much staggered for as I remember he demanded this question By whose means was it that Adam dyed this spiritual death was it inflicted on him by god or
rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query Whether Adam cast away Gods Image or whether God took it away from him in his Aphorismes page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit he dyed spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so he was deprived of the chief part of Gods Image but so was not Christ saith he And I was the more inlightned and supported in my Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. by P. Martyrs Answer to Pigghius See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 18. Original sin is the essential punishment of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect according to Gods eternal counsel are redeemed from it by Christ Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natural effect of Adams sin P. Martyr doth answer thus The ground and reason thereof is rather taken from the justice of God whereby the grace of the Spirit and heavenly giâ—â— wherewith man was endowed before his fall were removed from him when he had sinned and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God Although the blame saith he be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man lest a man should straitway say that God is the cause of sin for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned straitway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam This of Peter Martyr and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me then also I considered that Adams perfections were created to be but mutable untill he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life and therefore they were but lent him for a triall for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill he should dye the death and so lose his created perfections and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit God in justice took them away But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Image for he created him to be but of a mutable condition and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first In like sort at the first God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9. But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him because he gave it no otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose he should still have enjoyed it but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag then God took away this spirit of Government from him and then Saul grew wicked 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adams nature for his disobedience against his positive command as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command Conclusions 1 Hence it follows that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good as I conceive it is Then Mr. Nortons second Proposition and all his other Propositions that affirm that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice do fall to the ground 2 Hence it follows that the bodily death of the Elect and Eternal death in hel is but an accidental punishment to the first plritual death both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of mans nature in sin and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. or thus Adams disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of mans nature in sin the spiritual death of mans nature in sin was afterwards the meritorious cause of bodily death though God was pleased to sanctifie that punishment to all that do beleeve in the Promised Seed and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that beleeve not in the Promised Seed for when God ordained death he ordained judgement to succeed it Heb. 9. 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement He that beleeveth on the Son bath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life But the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3. 36. 3 Hence it follows that the inviolable rule of Gods relative Justice for mans Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of Gods secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall and that secret will but now revealed was that the formality of Christs death in seperating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice and the formality of all satisfaction as it is explained in Heb. 9. 15 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Norton Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth
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 is 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 shewed in Chap. 10. Sect. 4. and in Chap. 15. Sect. 2. at Eightly His sixth Proposition is this The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye as God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience be should be unjust in case be should not inflict death Reply Take this Proposition in relation to Adams mutable condition wherein he was created unto which the promise and threatning of the first Covenant hath immediate relation and then experience tells us that the threatning in case of Adams disobedience was executed and so in case he had first eaten of the Tree of life God should have been unjust if he had not confirmed him in his present created perfections But Mr. Norton it seems takes this promise and threatning chiefly to intend either eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell as if Adam had been immediately under the threatning of hell torments and that there is no other way to redeem him from them unlesse Christ stood as his Surety in the same obligation with him to bear them But the Reader may please to see my Reply to his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. In Chap. 10. and in other places I have often Replied to Gen. 2. 17. as you may see by the Table to that Scripture But as touching Gods promises of salvation and his threatning of damnation there is not the same reason of Gods performing promises and threatnings for mans happinesse is contained in the promises and therefore man performing the condition God cannot but will the reward the same will that wills the making of the promise must necessarily will the giving of the reward promised the condition being performed otherwise it would be vain and of no use for God to make promises to man But as for threatnings which concern mans destruction there is no such tye upon God unlesse his threatnings be delivered with an oath and therefore man will not and cannot complain if they be not executed and if God will rather glorifie his mercy in remitting the punishment upon what account he thought best in the Counsel of his own Will who can say he is unjust mercy herein rejoyceth against judgement See also my note on Psal 94. 15. His seventh Proposition is this The Elect then having sinned the Elect must dye if they dye in their own persons election is frustrate God is unfaithful if they dye not at all God is unjust the commination is untrue If elect men dye in their own person the Gospel is void if man doth not dye the Law is void they dye therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel c. Reply My former Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Sect. 3. is a sufficient confutation of this Proposition But Mr. Norton goes another way in his opening of that text and of that threatning and yet he doth not prove but beg the question and then he makes his inferences The Elect then having sinned must dye he takes not this death for death in sin as the truth is but he takes it principally for eternal death in hell I say in that sense his Proposition is not true for God never willed that the Elect should dye an eternal death in his fifth Proposition he said Gods will was the rule of his relative justice and yet he willed that the Reprobate should consequently dy an eternal death in the same threatning in case they did not imbrace the mercy offered by the promised Seed What God intended by that threatning is now evident to us by experience namely that the Reprobate should dye a spiritual death in sin and after that a corporal and after that an eternal death and that the Elect should dye a spiritual death in sin as well as the Reprobate and that after that they should have a new nature by the promised Seed and after that should dye a corporal death but yet that the Elect should be freed from eternal death upon such terms as were mutually agreed on betwixt the Trinity and that the remains of their spiritual death and also that their corporal death and all other punishments that should be inflicted on them for sin should by Gods Infinite mercy and wisdome be turned to their good for the glorifying of his free grace and rich mercy And it was just with God to do according to this his wil and therefore Mr. Nortons conclusion of this Proposition confutes his former part as Gods will is the rule of righteousnesse So Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousnesse The plain English of it must needs be this That in as much as it was the will of God not to execute the threatning of eternal death strictly upon the Elect but to moderate it and to suffer Sathan to inflict something only contained in it upon their Mediator by piercing him in the foot-soals at the same time when the seed of the Woman should break his Head-plot by making his soul a sacrifice for sin as the price of their Redemption for the glory of his grace This being the will of God it must needs be just as well as it was just for him to execute all that was contained in the threatning upon the Reprobates His eighth Proposition Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2. 17. he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule But man having sinned man must dye and satisfie the Law that man
Epist 10 Whitgensteniâ—â— unto Christs active obedience or to his native holinesse do thereby derogate from the death of Christ and do undoubtedly make it vain or superfluous Pareus doth often use this Argument and Mr. Gataker doth as often approve it not only in his disputation with Gomarus but also in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication in p. 13. 91. 10â— 136. and when he had repeated Pareus his words in p. 13. he speaks thus to Mr. Walker Now would I gladly understand from Mr. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus whether he count not him a blasphemous Heretick as well as Mr. Wotton The same question do I propound to Mr. Norton together with that crosse interrogatory that Mr. Gatakar propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith That the Law which Christ In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51 Psal 40. 8. saith was in his heart or bowels Psal 40. 8. was that special Law which lay upon him as he was the second Adam namely it was a positive Law like that which was given to the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mediator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten Commandements to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship just as the Dialogue doth and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith that Christs obedience in laying down his life was in obedience to a positive Law and not to the moral Law as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds the one they call Justiâ—â—â—a personâ— the righteousnesse of his person the other Justiâ—ia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines 〈◊〉 perâ—ene but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justiâ—ia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Pâ—ideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personâ— they place in Causa sine qua non 6 Saith Mr. Baxter many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God are of this judgement In his Pes of Just p. 53. and there he names many and saith he in his late Apologie to Mr. Blake p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of speciall use c. SECT 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice and was Legal obedience And in the same page he makes the Incarnation of Christ also to be legal obedience Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds That God had ordained Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not moral obedience but Madiatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship no other way to take satisfaction but first by our Saviours performing of legal obedience for us and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments for this way only he calls The way of Justice But in the former Section I have shewed that sundry orthodox whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd and yet they deny that Christs obedience in his death was legal obedience contrary to Mr. Norton 2 I will adde Mr. Ball to them for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience The Law saith he did not require that God should dye nor that any should dye that had not sinned nor such a death and of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam lost And saith Mr. Ball Christ upon the Crosse prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant p. 259. that crucified him Luke 23. 34. But saith he that might be of private duty as man who subjected himself to the Law of God which requires that we forgive our enemies and pray for them that pâ—rsecâ—te us not of the proper office of a Mediator which was to offer up himself a sacrifice who was to interecede for his people by suffering death It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law to fulfill all Righteousnesse and to pray for his enemies but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator Hence the Reader may observe that Mr. Ball makes Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee out of private duty as a man and not ex officio out of the proper office of a Mediator as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life and therefore had power to lay it down and take it up And this power he had though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law but by vertue of a particular Command Constitution and Designation to that service of laying down his life This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter The Law of the Creature and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different The will of his Father which hee came to do consisted in many things which were never required of us And such saith he are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad upon Gomarus doth thus Upon Gomarus p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will By which Will wee are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that were requisite for the Expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed
14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jastification And in this respect the Temple is also called The habitation of justice Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither were justified persons as to the outward man yea all the Nation in this respect are holy Exod. 19. and therefore any of Israel though never so vild by moral sins yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary as justified persons in regard of that place but on the contrary if any man though never so godly and therefore morally justified did but want this ceremonial cleansing they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in Gods Sanctuary and were guilty of cutting off by death Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19 13. so then their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law was but to typisie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time at the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse as in Jer 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33. 18. finned against me and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me Here cleansing is put for justification by forgivenesse And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall bee clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idels will I cleanse you And in vers 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9. 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fulnesse of time doth purge us Heb. 1. 3. and cleanse us Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Fathers Attonement which doth formally expiate sin cleanse it purge it and wash it away See Ains in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 16. 30 33. Numb 8. 7 21. Numb 19. 9. Psal 517. So that to them that are in Christ there in no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers of Gal 4. 4. is this God sent forth his Son This word sent implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity or else the Father could not have sent him forth for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son because they are in nature equal Job 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent which may bee called a Covenant I came down from Heaven said Christ not to do mine own humane will but the will of him that sent me Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman For according to Gen 3 15. Hee was made of the seed of the woman by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law Being made of a woman that was a Jew he was made under the Law of Types 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law But hee could not redeem any from the boundage of Moses Rites untill hee had fulfilled all the Types by his own blessed death and sacrifice in the fulnesse of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God and from Sathans Head-plot It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice but that he did as he was a Jew only but he fulfilled the Types as hee was a Mediator only by his death and sacrifice and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us both from the bondage of Moses Rites and also from Sathans Head-plot And thus we may see that the Types of the ceremonial Law especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice were ordained to The ceremonial Types of cleansing especially of Priest and Sacrifice did typifie our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacrifice in precuring Gods Attonement Heb 9. 13. typifie the Law of Mediatorship and our moral justification by him Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for mans redemption let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies for in them as in a glasse they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption and therefore when Christ came into the world he said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in place of Types then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God by the doing of which will we are sanctified namely purged purified or cleansed from sin as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9. 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying see Ains in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all To cleanse men from sins meerly Ceremonial the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance Heb. 9. 13. and hence the Apostle insers in vers 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this namely in the super-excellency of this High-priest above the Legal-priest in vers 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood as vers 12. but in the super-â—xcellency of this High-priest and his sacrifice united personally as vers 14. How much more c. Suppose a Priest as excellent had been found and also a Sacrifice as excellent in two distinct persons yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator but the admirable personal union of this High-priest and Sacrifice did comprise the act of
hell in this life without Gods extraordinary â—â—spensation page 120. The dispensation of God saith he is either extraordinary or ordinary According to the ordinary dispensation of God saith he the paints of Hell cannot be suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life Reply 5. Ere while he said that the pain of losse was onely the losse of the sense of the favour of God for a time if his sufferings were no more then so then it is evident that God in the course of his ordinary dispensation doth suffer many of his children in this life to bee wholly bereft of the sense of his favour for a time Therefore in this case what need is there that Mr. Norton should flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation except hee think that the pain of sense over and above the pain of losse could not bee suffered without an extraordinary dispensation According to Gods ordinary dispensation hee grants that Christ could not suffer Hell-torments in this life But saith he he suffered them by an extraordinary dispensation and yet according to Gods ordinary dispensation the Saints have suffered the pains of Sheol Now let the Reader judge what a refuge hee is forced to flye unto to support his grand Maxim and how far he yeelds the case unto the Dialogue seeing hee cannot maintain what hee would maintain but by Gods extraordinary dispensation It is a poor peece of Divinity to maintain that for the only truth and to condemn the contrary for damnable Heresie and yet have no better proof to flye unto for the support of it than Gods extraordinary dispensation Out of all doubt Purgatory and the Miracles that are in the legend of Saints may passe for current truth if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation without demonstration of Scripture SECT 4. Mr. Norton goes on to explain his first distinction in page 8. in these words The Accidental part of the punishment of the Curse is all the rest of the penall evill thereof and befals the Reprobate not from that Curse simply but from the disposition of the Patient under that Curse Of these accidental parts of punishment which if you please may well passe under the name of penal adjuncts are final and total separation from God total and final despair final death in sin duration of punishment for ever the place of punishment c. Reply 1 THe Reader may please to take notice that except Mr. Norton intend more under this unlimited word c. here is instanced only such penal evils as are competible to a sinner under damnation executed But the precedent parts of punishment that flow upon sinners from the curse in this life the Death in sin is the essential Curse in Gen. 2. 17. doth not mention and whether he hold any of them to be essential parts of the curse or no he hath not expressed his meaning but in his vindication of Gen. 2. 17. hee placeth death in sin as wel as death for sin within the compasse of the term Death equally flowing from the curse there mentioned some particulars of that death in sin may bee thus instanced 1 The losse of Gods Image 2 Corruption of nature 3 Servitude under sin and Satan 4 Gods punishing one sin with another These and the like are In mar l. r. c. 12. Thes 45 46 47. reckoned up by Dr. Ames and hee doth shew four wayes how they have the respect of punishment Now if Christ bare all the essentials of the Curse then hee must bear this of death in sin as I have more at large opened the true sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But fear of manifest blasphemy will deny that Christ bare this essential punishment of the Curse and thence it will also follow that either Christ bare not all the essentials or that death in sin is not essential though it flow essentially from the said Curse 2 If Mr. Norton hold that the punishment of death in sin which doth befall all mankind in this life is not de jure by due desert as it is a rule of relative justice of its own nature an essential punishment flowing naturally and essentially from the said curse but rather by accident then let him shew how the said death in sin doth not proceed from that curse simply but only from the condition of the Patient under the curse but I beleeve it will trouble his patience to make a clear Answer to this In his first Argument in page 10. Hee saith this sentence In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death was universal given to Adam as a publick person and holds all his posterity Gen. 2. 17. whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death by death I suppose he means death in the latitude of it according to his exposition of Gen. 2. 17. and there namely in page 20. he saith that the death there spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5. 21. and Rom. 6. 23. That is all evill the evill of Adams sin excepted in one word therefore saith he equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of death Reply 2. From hence the Reader may take notice of these two expressions 1 That he makes that word Death to comprehend all kind of death 2 That the death there spoken of is the wages of sin To me this is a peece of strange Divinity that Mr. Norton should hold the wages of sin to bee either essential namely such as flows from sin as the proper wages thereof or else such as is accidental namely such as is not the proper wages and desert of sin but as it proceeds from the condition or disposition of the Patient under the said wages and due desert of sin SECT 5. Mr. Norton still proceeds to explain his first Distinction in page 8. in these words Absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation not of the essence of Punishment because the Elect notwithstanding the commination stood in full force against them yet they continued elected and in Covenant with Christ The Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam Reply 1. I Suppose Mr. Nortons meaning is That the Elect were in Christ virtually before they were in Adam actually Hence I infer that in the same sense they were elected in Christ they were elected to be partakers of Christ and his Ransome if so then I cannot see how the commination could stand in Seeing the Elect were in Christ virtually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death only full force against them seeing according to that Election they were by him redeemed from the curse of the Law Gal. 3. 13. Enmity slain Eph. 2. 16. no condemnation to them Rom. 8. 1. and the hand-writing that was against them
justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is an effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de factâ— are not Adam till it please God to make an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal death it is from Gods justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c. 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in â—o 5. Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev. 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiaâ— teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Piggbius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because
more truly said because Christ did not deserve the Essentials Let the unpartial Reader judge between us CHAP. VI. Mr. Nortons third Distinction in Page 9. examined which is this Distinguish concerning Imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt taken not for the commission of sin but for the obligation to punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the latter sense Reply 1. I Grant that Gods imputation of sin is either of sin it self or of guilt or rather of both for they are correlates and therefore Gods imputation whether it bee understood of sin it self or of sin and guilt jâ—yntly It doth alwayes in Scripture-language refer to the same subject But saith Mr. Norton in Page 41. Guilt and Punishments are Relates Reply 2. I grant they are alwayes Relates according to the order of legal proceedings in Courts of justice and in this way and order of satisfaction doth Mr. Norton go all along But in point of Christs satisfaction I go all along in the All Christs suâ—â—eâ—iâ—gs were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins impuâ—ed way and order of Voluntary causes and according to the way and order of those causes the suffering of punishments is not a Relate to the imputation of sin preceding As for example in the point of tryal of Masteries there the suffering of punishments is meerly and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant both in the Law-makers and in the undertakers and such wâ—re all the sufferings of Christ they were all from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and all his outward sufferings were from his voluntary undertaking to enter the lists with Sathan according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. and not from the imputation of the guilt of our sins according to the order of Court-justice I grant also that when ever God doth punish any one in See Burges on Justif p. 27. anger it is alwayes from the imputation of sin in the subject and so saith Mr. Burges God afflicts none namely in anger but where there is sin in the subject and in that sense guilt and punishment are Relates but yet from the Voluntary cause and Covenant punishments may be suffered without judicial imputation and so consequently without judicial anger But of this see more in my Reply to 2 Cor. 5. 21. The guilt of Adams sin saith Dr. Reynolds is inseparable from In his siâ— fulnesse of sin p. 35. the sin it self being the proper passion of it Lo in this short sentence how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adams first sin he makes his guilt to be the proper passion of his first sin And hence it follows necessarily according to Mr. Norton That the guilt of Adams sin being imputed to Christ he must be spiritually dead in sin for spiritual death in sin is the proper guilt and proper passion of Adams first sin This I hinted at in the Dialogue And of this see more in Chap. 2. in R. 2. ult If original sin had not been ordained in Gods justice to bee the proper guilt and punishment of Adams first sin then it would follow that Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin And now compare Mr. Nortons distinction to the guilt of Adams sin Imputation of guilt saith he is the obligation to punishment By this Doctrine it follows that Christ did suffer the guilt and punishment of Adams first sin namely a spiritual death in sin Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed God imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all men because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by vertue of Gods Covenant touching mans nature in general imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam because Gods Covenant was made with Adam and the nature of all mankind in general as I have shewed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatned but so was not Christ hee was not of Adam by ordinary Generation Our guilt saith Mr. Baxter in his Preface to Mr. Ayr page 7. was Reatus culpae poenae propter culpam nostram ex obligatione leg is Christs guilt is bat Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obliga 〈…〉 s ad eandem the same in value but noe Eâ—dem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molianaeus page 224. he doth justly taxe this kind of Imputation to bee the very root and master veyn of all Antinomianism And in page 225. saith hee Bee it known to you therefore that Christ did obey and suffer in the person of a Mediator and not in persona delinquentis though for the sins of the Delinquent being obliged to suffer by his voluntary undertaking and therefore his sufferings or obedience are none of ours as performed by him But Mâ— Norton in the point of imputing our sins to Christ doth go beyond his said Distinction as I apprehend For in page 79. ult Hee saith That Christ was a notorious Malefactâ—r having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God In page 98. Whom wee have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect both hanged upon the Crâ—sse and others In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Reply 3. In these and other like places he makes our sins as wâ—ll as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It cannot beshewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a In Rom 5. p. 121 b. sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hâ—e hath before committed sin unlesse wee will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them P. Martyr I confess speaks this of Infants that dye before they have committed any actual sin but yet it is a four square truth in general Turn it on which side you will and it will lye fast he tells Piggâ—ius that God could not impute the guilt of Adamâ— sin to Infants unlesse Infants had been first truly guilty of Adams sin and it is evident that all Infants and all the world are truly guilty of Adams sin because all mankind were in Adam not only naturally but also legally in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him as the head of mans nature in general So that by the force of that Covenant concerning mans nature in general all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant in case of Adams obedience and in the evil of the Curse of that Covenant in case of his disobedience and therefore seeing all had this equal interest in the Covenant of nature it follows that wee had an interest in his
16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Sarety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and so in an unproper sense he may be called our Surety but not in a proper legal sense according to Mr. Nortons Court-language This way of satisfaction first declared in Gen. 3. 15. is the foundation upon which all after Prophecies touching satisfaction by Christs death and sufferings must have dependence and as it was first exemplified to Adam in the sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath and therefore all those positive Laws touching Priest and Sacrifice declared afterwards to Moses are but the further opening of the manner of Christs satisfaction and indeed those types were but the Picture of what was agreed on in the Eternal Covenant to bee performed in due time by the seed of the Woman 4 It may hence be gathered That God ordained no other afflâ—ctions for Christ to suffer but either from Sathans enmity in piercing him in the foot-soals meaning thereby his outward afflictions Or else secondly they were from himself in the inward man for as he was true man of the seed of the Woman so he must be inwardly touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore as often as objects of fear or sorrow c. did present he was to be touched as our merciful High-priest with a greater measure of these infirmities than any other man can be but no Scripture doth speak a word in Mr. Nortons Dialect that his soul was pressed under the sense of Gods immediate wrath for in case his Fathers immediate wrath had pressed those sorrows from his soul as Mr. Nortons term is then those sufferings had not been voluntary from his own will but constrained but say all sound Divines nothing was constrained in Christ by any supreme power and therefore not by Gods immediate wrath though the Devil had liberry to use what force hee could to his outward man yet hee had no liberty to force his soul but himself was the only voluntary Agent in all the affections of his soul hee feared hee sorrowed c. when hee would and as much as hee would and therefore was often touched with the feeling of our infirmities in a larger measure than any other mans soul can bee and thus hee was our voluntary Mediator and Surety Mr. Norton still makes Christ to bee our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam on the contrary I do still affirm that Christ suffered our punishments not from Gods judicial imputation of sin for then indeed he had suffered from Gods wrath but that he suffered our punishments only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and such sufferings might be and were undertaken by Christ both without any judicial imputation of sin and also without wrathâ— as in the trial of masteries with Sathan Enmity upon Adams fall was proclamed and the seed of the Woman was commanded but not in wrath to enter the lists with Sathan and try masteries with him and the Devil must do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience and Christ must exemplifie the perfection of his obedience by the perfection of his patience even in that ignominious and painful death of the Crosse untill hee had finished all his sufferings for his consecration to his Priestly office and then at last make his soul a sacrifice for sin But this way of satisfaction Mr. Norton dams for heresie The Lord open his eyes to see better and the eyes of those that are misled by him 5 It was ordained in the Eternal Decree and Covenant that Christ should be consecrated to his Priestly office for the better making his death a sacrifice by afflictions Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9. Heb. 2. 10. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his Passion to be for his consecration to his sacrifice To consecrate is interpreted by the Seventy to make perfect As for example when the people had worshipped the Golden Calf Moses by Gods special positive command in Exod. 32. 27. 29. commanded the Levites to consecrate their hands by doing perfect and exact justice upon the Idolaters without respect of persons not sparing their own sons or neer kindred and this act of theirs is recorded to their praise in Deut. 33. 9. and by this impartial act of perfect justice their hands were consecrated to God 2 The consecration of Aaron and his sons to the Priestly office was to bee effected by continuing seven dayes under the observation of certain particular Rites before their consecration could bee finished Exod. 29. 9. and Lev. 8. 22. and then the very next day after their consecration was finished Moses bid them draw near to the Altar to execute the Priests office by offering a sacrifice both for themselves and for the people Lev. 9. 7. But Christ needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself and therefore it was only for his people 3 As Moses is said to consecrate Aaron and his sons through many particular Rites exactly observed whereof one was no small affliction though willingly born by them at the Lords appointment namely Yee shall abide at the door of the Tent of the Congregation day and night seven dayes and shall keep the charge of Jeâ—ovah that ye dye not Lev. 8. 33. This exact watch for that space of time being separated from their wives and families under the penalty of death was doubtlesse a time of affliction to them though as I said before willingly born at the Lords appointment 4 It is said in Heb. 2. 10. It became him namely it became God the Father that hee should consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions And it is also said in verse 17. That it behoved Christ to bee made like unto his brethren that he might bee a merciful and a faithful high Sacrificer in things concerning God and that hee might make Reconciliation for the sins of the people 5 In these two verses
we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christs Priesthood both on the Fathers part and on Christs part 1 It is said of the Father That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions that is to make his obedience perfect through afflictions or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions hee would have objected thus against Christ In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience as I had to try Adams obedience this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God as Adam was Therefore it became so perfect a Work-man as God was to declare that Sathan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman and to do his worst to pervert his obedience Gen. 3. 15. And secondly It behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to enter the Lists with Sathan not in his divine nature but in our nature and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore it is also said That it behoved Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston In Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 13â— The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numericâ—l and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin infers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon â—pec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferiâ—gs were from the vâ—luntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to
as Bucer did at fourthly above Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death and by a consequent saith Bro. nor my body in the Grave nor my soul among souls till my body see corruption And in his explication of the Article of Descent into Hell page 16. he saith thus Peter and Paul both citing this 16. Psalm do cite it to no further death then that which all must feel 3 Mr. Carlisle saith thus on Psal 16. 10. Thou wilt not leave Nephes my body in the Grave for indeed the vital soul is a part of In his book against Christs local Descent p. 32. the body and thus speaks our larger Annotations on Psal 16. 10. I confesse it is to my admiration that Mr. Norton should commend that exposition of the word Soul for Christs immortal soul properly and yet by Sheol and Haides doth understand no The soul in the N. T. is often put for the vital soul more but the Grave in page 110. And thus you see that Mr. Norton hath confounded his own Distinction The Hebrew Nephesh and the Greek Psuche which we call Soul saith Ainsworth in Ps 16. 10. hath the name of Breathing and Respiring and saith he it is the vital spirit that all quick things move by therefore beasts birds fish and creeping things are called Living souls Gen. 1. 20. 24. and this soul is sometimes called The blood Gen. 9. 4. because it is in the blood of all quick things Lev. 17. 11. 2 Christopher Carlisle proves on the Article of Descent page 144. 153. that Nephesh is never used for the immortal soul in all the Old Testament and saith Dr. Hammond in 1 Thes 5. 23. Psuche the soul doth ordinarily in the New Testament signifie The life and saith Carlisle in p. 155. Psuchee doth signifie the immortal soul but in three places namely in Mat. 10. 27. 28. Iam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. and saith he in the New Testament it signifies for the most part that which Nephes doth in the Old And secondly he makes it to signifie the fear of death in Christs humane nature in Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. But thirdly Though Neshemab doth also signifie the vital soul yet t is never used for the vital soul of the unreasonable creatures as Nephesh is but only of man and therefore the Hebrews do often understand by it the immortal or the rational soul See Aben Ezra upon Eccles 3. 21. 7. 5. And saith Carlisle in p. 162. Neshemah hath its name of Shamaim Heaven for that the immortal soul cometh from Heaven These things considered I think Mr. Norton hath but little ground to perswade his Reader from his learned Authors that the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. is to be understood properly of the immortal Soul of Christ CHAP. VIII The Examination of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments His first Argument is this in Page 10. Either Christ suffered the Iustice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the Execution thereof without the violation of his Iustice But God could not dispence with the Execution thereof without the violalation of his Iustice Reply 1. BOth Propositions are unsound 1 The major because hee presupposeth from Gen. 2. 17. That Christ was included in the first Covenant as Adams Surety in the same Obligation with him This hath been denied and answered several times and indeed the plain letter of the text doth directly out-face it both in Gen. 2. 17. and in Deut. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. c. All these Gen. 2. 17. places do directly threaten the sinner himself only Yea some Divines that hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering Gods vindicative wrath yet in this they do oppose Mr. Norton In the rigor of the Law saith Mr. Ball the Delinquent himself See Ball on the Covenant p. 290. is in person to suffer the penalty denounced Every man shall bear his own burthen Gal. 6. 5. And in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death Gen. 2. 17. so that the Law in the rigor thereof doth not saith hee admit of any commutation or substitution of one for another and so hee concludes that satisfaction was made by another free Covenant 2 The minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the excution of the Essential Curse without the violation of his Justice But in this Tenent Mr. Norton 1 King 21. 3. M. Norton leaves the point of satisfaction in an uncertaintie because he doth one while say that Christ suffered the essential curse onely that another while that onely which was equivalent doth sufficiently confute himself for he doth often say that Christ suffered pains equivalent to the pains of Hell If they were but equivalent then they were not the same and then God did dispence with the Essential pains in kind which is contrary to his minor and contrary to his first Distinction Ahab offered unto Naboth that which was equivalent to the full worth of his Vineyard but yet Ahab could not accept it for satisfaction because God had determined in Lev. 25. 23. That the Land should not be sold for ever and therefore Naboth could not account any equivalent thing to be satisfaction but his Vineyard in kind onely 1 King 21. 3. So changeable are Mr. Nortons Principles that they can have but little truth in them Reply 2. But Mr. Norton doth labor to confirm his minor by Matth. 5. 18. Till Heaven and Earth pass one joâ— or tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled This Scripture Mr. Norton doth cite several times 1. To prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse for us as in p. 10. 104. 213. 2 He doth also often cite it to prove that Christ as God-Man Mediator fulfilled the Law in a way of works for us as in p. 152 192 197 240 267. Therefore seeing he doth lay such great weight upon this Text I think it needful to examine the true sense of this Text and then it will appear that Mr. Norton doth pervert the true sense of it to his corrupt ends This Text of Mat. 5. 17. 18. doth speak of Christs fulfilling Mat. 5. 17 18. the Law but not in respect of his own personal conformity to it as Mr. Norton would have it to speak but it speaks of his fulfilling it by filling up the spiritual sense of it which was suppressed by the Scribes and Pharisees he fulfilled that is to say he filled up the true Interpretation of it in its latitude for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward in the way of sanctified obedience In this sense Matthew saith That Christ came to fulfill the Law and in this sense it did belong to his Mediators Office as he was the Prophet of his Church to rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for destroying the spiritual sense of the Law
of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Aâ—ab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21 〈…〉 for it 〈◊〉 it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods imputation and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God that highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Iustice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we consess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditoinal promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in
his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 17. It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion Heb. 9. 27 28 for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 and in Chap 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these â—hree Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man
with Adam in the first Covenant In Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and Chap. 6. c. 2 I say also that his minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the execution of the essential Curse without the violation of his Justice What was sometimes spoken saith he of the Laws of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not Reply 6. 1 Take the death threatned for a spiritual death in sin and then we see by experience that it was formally executed on all mankind from that instant to every one that hath life in the womb even to the end of world though yet it hath pleased God to mitigate the violent outrage of that death not onely to the Elect but also to the Reprobate while they live in this world 2 Take the death there threatned for bodily death and then we see by experience that it was not formally executed at that present neither shall it bee formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement We shall not all dye saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell and then we also see by experience that it was not formally executed God doth often dispence with hâ—s peremptory threatnings on Adam but this is certain that what God hath threatned against man for sin he may justly inflict but he is not alwayes bound to it except his threatnings be delivered with an oath Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin but not what shall infallibly be inflicted as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience that God did often repent of his Threatnings and thereupon did alter them from what hee had expressed in his revealed will but not from what he had decreed in his secret will As for example God sent his Prophet Isaiab to Hezekiah saying Set thy house in order for to dye thou shalt dye and not live This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is delivered first Affirmatively to dye Thou shalt dye that is Thou shalt 2 King 20. 1â— surely dye And secondly It is delivered Negatively Thou shalt not live And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threatning was alterable and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer that God would spare his life and give him a son to sit upon his Throne and God heard his prayer and altered his threatning and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will and for the removal of threatned evils 2 King 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations for our prayers Gen. 19. 21. Job 3. 10. Es 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the childs life after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee willeth not only to prove us Mat. 15. 23 24 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb 14 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death yet the Apostle saith also That we shall not all dye 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God we see doth often alter his peremptory threatnings 2 Take another Instance God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying Thou art but a dead man that is saith Ainsworth Thou shalt sarely dye This threatning saith Traheron on Rev. 4 seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning as that to Adam and yet indeed saith he it had a secret condition which is after expressed in verse 7 Restore her now to her husband if thou restore her not see the condition now expressed which at first was reserved know thou shalt surely dye But take notice of this that when God told Adam If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge thou shalt surely dye there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sentence of death in sin for till Christ was revealed no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatning neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings except they bee delivered with an oath God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters when they have threatned a child or servant that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished yet when the fault is committed they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves or the party offending or to both than if the punishment had been inflicted then who can deny that liberty to God himself who is a most absolute Supreme 3 Take another Instance Jonah said Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traberon not declaring Gods secret determination what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning 4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse when they desile my Tabernacle that is among them This threatning God did sometimes execute and sometimes he did not execute it but did alter it at his pleasure as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the dayes of Hezekiab 2 Chron. 30. 19 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19 20. of them were sick and weak and dyed and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiab were healed and restored to health And so death is threatned in Num 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dye yet God dispenced with death to King Vzziah and smote him with leprosie and Saul dyed not though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing But I intreat the judicious Reader to take notice that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption where he affirms That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse but that it must be born either by Adam or else by Adams Surety In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase In dying Thou shalt dye is alterable even to men that are not in Christ upon their temporary repentance as in Niniveh and Abab SECT V. But saith Mr. Norton This threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law for be makes Adams sin in eating the
forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law Reply 7. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature as his moral Law was positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature as the eating of the two Trees was for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature but reserved in Gods secret Decrec to be imposed on man for an act or acts for a time as hee pleased to appoint and then to be annihilated again I grant that the moral Law of nature did direct Adam to obey God in whatsoever positives he should appoint But yet by the Law of nature he knew not any of Gods positives till they were particularly revealed neither can man without a special revelation know the reason of them because they depended only on the good pleasure of God and therefore Adams moral perfections could not prevent but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of positives as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 I do not remember and I pray let the Judicious consider it that eternal death is directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at the first death in sin and ever after a bodily death but eternal death is often directly threatned for Unbeleâ—f and Rebellion against the Law of Grace and therefore the threatning in Gen. 2. 17. may bee exempted from that threatning though not from death in sin 3 Let it bee supposed that the first Covenant with Adam was made in relation to the moral Law which is denied and cannot be granted yet it is evident that God doth somtimes alter from See P Martyr in Com. pl. par 1. pag 190. that Law for he commanded Abraham to kill his only son which was contray to the sixth Commandement and hee commanded the Israelites to spoyl the Egyptians of their goods Exod. 11. 2. and Christ bid the Impotent man when he was healed to carry his bed on his back on the Sabbath day These examples shew that God is not tyed to his revealed moral Laws as wee are but that he hath a supreme power to alter from that Rule to his secret Decree but when God is God doth somtimes alter from the rule of his moral Commands to his secret Decree pleased to bind his promises or threatnings by an oath then we may be sure his will so revealed is unalterable because his oath doth alwayes declare what his secret Will and Decree is And hence it comes to passe that his word and command which he delivers to us for our rule is many times alterable because it is many times differing from his secret Decree And hence it is that when his threatnings are annexed to his Laws it is to shew unto man what his sin deserves but not what God will certainly execute for it is his good pleasure sometimes to Relax his threatning which is a forgivenesse of temporal plagues Psal 78. 38. 2 Sam. 12. 13 14. for as there are two sorts of punishments threatned so there are two sorts of pardon Isal 78 38. one in relation to temporary and the other in relation to eternal punishment and so in like sort there are two sorts of justification 4 This sentence as it relates to eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. In the Right way of dying well saith Perkins must be understood with an exception borrowed from the Gospel or Covenant of Grace revealed to Adam presently after his fall The exception goes thus Thou shalt certainly dye whensoever thou eatest of the forbidden fruit except I give thee a deliverance from death namely the Seed of the woman to destroy the Devils Head-plot And saith Vrsinus after that sentence in Gen. 2. 17. there followed the equity moderation and lenity of the Gospel in his Ans to Q. 40. And saith Baxter How can it stand with the truth and justice of God to dispence with his threatnings he answers thus to In his Aphora p. â—8 and in Append. p. 122. this Question When threatnings are meerly parts of the Law and not also predictions of events and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabout then they may be dispenced with without any breach of truth and he gives two Instances to explain his meaning the last of them runs thus when God saith Thou shalt dye the death the meaning is Death shall bee the due reward of thy sin so that it may be inflicted at my pleasure and not that hee should certainly suffer it in the event And he cites Vossius concluding that the Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispenced with and abrogate And to this sense saith another learned Divine The commination in Gen. 2. 17. is like to some other of Gods threats against the Transgressors of his Law but it bindeth not God that he shall have power to release or mitigate what and to whom it pleaseth him The Elect are called the children of wrath as well as others De Recens peccatoris par 1 c. 1. But saith Mr. Norton It may bee answered that the Holy Ghost in these and such like places of Scripture doth signifie what is due to sin and sinners and what their estate must needs bee in their own apprehensions if they will judge of themselves according to the light of true reason for there is in sin a certain naughtiness for which it justly may bee and indeed is odious unto God but it will not follow thereupon that he ceaseth to love them Whom he hath predestinate unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. All these Instances do evidence that Gods threatnings in the event are often alterable and therefore that his threatning of eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. in case it be there threatned is alterable and doth not bind God neither to leave the Elect under the power of their spiritual death in sin nor yet to inflict eternal death neither on the Elect nor on their Surety and therefore according to the liberty of his eternal Will and purpose hee ordained that the conlfict of Christ with Sathan in continuing obedient to the death of the Crosse and at last making his soul a sacrifice should be a valuable consideration whereion hee would dispence with the rigor of his commination and so let fall or suspend the pnealty of eternal death in case it had been the chief thing threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as most do hold and therefore for their sakes I have cited these Instances though still I think my first exposition of Gen. 2. 17. is sound and good in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. CHAP. XI SECT I. The Examination of Isa 53. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Mr. Jacob interprets these sorrows of Hell sorrows which Christ bare in our stead or else we must have both them THe Dialogue in
pag. 15. 16. makes this answer The Evangelist Matthew hath expounded this Text to a quite contrary sense Math. 8. 17. Matthew saith this Text of Isaiah was fulfilled when Christ took away our infirmities and bare our sicknesses from such as were infirm and sick Not as a Porter bears a burden by laying them upon his own body but by bearing them from the sick by divine power Mr. Norton in page 35. doth answer to the Dialogue thus The Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us as it is plain saith he from the Chapter and the comparing of the comparing of the fourth and fifth verses with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and by bearing those griefs and sorrows be intends Christs bearing them in our stead c. Reply 1. He makes the Reader beleeve that the scope of this Chapter doth speak to this one point namely That Christ did Christ carried our sorrows c sicknesses away by his Divine power bear such griefs and sorrows as are due to us which in other places he calls the Essential torments of Hell and thence hee insers that this speech in verse 4. He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows doth intend so much but a judicious Reader may easily see that the scope of this Chapter is to set out the operations of the divine nature as well as of the humane and of several other things that belong both to the Person and Office of Christ and therefore the simple Reader may easily bee deceived by telling them thus That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends such sufferings by Christ as are due to us namely Hell-sorrows as is plain from the Chapter 2 He tells the Reader that this sense is plain by comparing of the fourth and fifth verses with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and thus hee doth winde in the fourth verse with the fifth verse whereas indeed the fifth verse only doth answer to 1 Pet. 2. 24. and so the Dialogue doth parallel it and explain and thus hee deceives both himself and the Reader by joyning both these verses together in one sense which in the Dialogue are handled asunder in a differing sense and the Dialogue gives this evident reason for it namely because the bearing away of our griefs in vers 4. is expounded by Matthew of his bearing away of our infirmities and diseases by the power of his God-head and to this very sense Matthew doth translate this verse of Isaiah saying That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses and besides the Prophet himself doth confirm this sense in the last clause of this fourth verse saying Yet we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted The Dialogue doth open this clause thus Though the glory of his God-head did shine in our eyes by his miraculous bearing away of sicknesses and infirmities yet we esteemed him but as a grosse Impostor and therefore put him to death as a vild Malefactor and then we judged him that had done so many miraculous cures to be stricken smitten of God and afflicted for his own deserved faults And thus the Reader may see the true sense of this verse to bee cleered by the context as well as by Matthews translation But if his bearing our sorrows had meant that he bare our Hell-sorrows then the last clause must have run thus And wee did rightly judge that hee was plagued and smitten of Gods wrath with Hell-sorrows But Mr. Norton cuts off this last clause with these words The rest saith he is either impertinent or uncontroverted so that it seems hee makes his last clause to bee impertinent for it is not uncontroverted And now let the judicious Reader judge of his Answer by my Reply SECT II. But Mr. Norton goes on to prove That Christ bare our very sorrows as a Porter bears a burden in page 35. From the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this fourth verse For saith he Though Nasa he hath born be of more general use and doth sometimes signifie to bear as a Porter bears a burden and sometimes otherwise Yet saith he Sabal hee hath carried signifies properly to bear as one bears a burden This restraineth the sense of the former word and limits it to the received interpretatiâ—n Reply 2. BY this Exposition of Nasa with Sabal Mr. Norton shews himself to bee a greater Scholar than the Evangelist Matthew For saith he Sabal signifieth properly to bear as one bears a burden and therefore saith he this restraineth the sense of the former word Nasa to the received interpretation by this hee tells the Reader that Matthews interpretation is not the received interpretation but that Mr. Nortons interpretation is the received interpretation They may receive it that please The blind will eat many a flye but I hope the Lord will help me to receive Matthews interpretation before it But secondly If Sabal doth signifie properly to bear as one bears a burden and doth restrain Nasa to the same sense then it follows that either Christ took the infirmities from the sick and bare them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden or else that Matthew gives a wrong interpretation of Sabal And thus Mr. Norton hath put himself into a Dilemma and therefore now hee must either blame his own interpretation to justifie Matthew or else he must still blame Matthews interpretation of Sabal to justifie his 3 I conceive that Mr. Norton had reasoned more like a Scholar if hee had said that though Sabal doth ordinarily signifie to carry as a Porter bears a burden yet sometimes when it is joyned with Nasa it may signifie lifting up or bearing away as Nasa doth usually I am no Linguist yet with a little help from others I do sometimes make use of Kirkerâ—es Hebrew-Greek See Ainsw in Num 6 26. Lexicon and there I see that Sabal is twice used with Nasa in Isa 46. 4. in a metaphorical sense for Gods merciful delivering his people from Babylon and a metaphorical sense may bee compared with the litteral in some respects but yet such comparisons must not alwayes run on four seet I find also that the Seventy do there render Sabal by two differing Greek words and neither of them do signifie to bear as a Porter bears a burden and I find they do use it also in other various senses I find also that Sabel of Sabal is rendred by our Translators the charge in taking care for the well ordering of things in 1 King 11. 28. But suppose that Nasa and Sabal do signifie that Christ bâ—re our griefs and sorrows as a Porter bears a burden as hee did in his affections of compassion for it is after said when they brought diseased persons to him That he had compassion on them and in this respect hee took our nature with our sin-less infirmities that so hee might bee touched and might thereby know how to pity us
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hâ—e gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I consess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peâ—rced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiaâ— saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgiessions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise hiâ— and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The band of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Job 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Job 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Male factor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unfound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormiented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with
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 be 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 between God and men and was a figure of our Mediator Christ who laid down his life for his sheep Ioh. 10. 15. and redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses say the Hebrew Doctors was That hee might dye instead of them and bear their iniquity according to that in Isa 53. 5. He was wounded for our Trespasses For say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation Ex. 32. 32. See Ains in Exod. 32. 32. But in case Moses had been made guilty of their sin by Gods imputation doubtless hee had not been a fit person to offer his life as a Mediator for their lives This resemblance I grant is but very weak because Moses did not offer to give his life as a Mediator for them by a mutual Covenant but of his own head and therefore his offer was refused yet that speech of the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation may somewhat inlighten touching that place in 1 Pet. 3. 18. where it is said That 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ suffered the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God for hee being just in Gods sight ingaged himself acording to a mutual and reciprocal Covenant to enter the Lists with Sathan and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Sathan even to the death of the Crosse that so at last hee might make his soul a sacrifice of Attonement and so bring us to God Mark this Hee is called the just in all his sufferings But hee was not so called in the Jews account for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor Neither could hee bee said to be absolutely just in the sight of God in case God had imputed the guilt of our sins to him in a formal legal way But saith Peter The just suffered for the unjust hee that knew himself to be every way just in the fight of God and of his Law hee entred the Lists and suffered from Sathans enmity and yet still he continued obedient to the death and so continued to bee just And hence wee may see wherein the efficacy of Christs All Christs sufferings were without any imputation of sin from God and therefore he was accepted and so his obedience to the death doth bring us to God sufferings do consist namely in this because in all his conflict with Sathan his patience was not disturbed nor his obedience perverted but to the very last hee approved himself to bee most just and righteous in the sight of God and therefore hee conquered Sathan by righteousnesse as the ancient Divines do very often speak because he strove lawfully according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters And so hee won the prize 2 In his combate with Sathan his obedience was eminent above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that patiently submits his life to bee taken away by justice because hee put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Sathan and in all his sufferings that so hee might please him that had chosen him to bee the Captain of our salvation and in that respect his chastisements which hee suffered from Sathans malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper are said to bee for our peace and healing by obtaining a reconciliation for us and so he doth heal us and bring us to God and so say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the Just maketh Reconciliation It is no evill in it self to bee punished from a voluntary undertaking of a combate but to bee punished in a legal way through a legal imputation of sin and guilt that is a true evill indeed 3 Take notice in some particulars how eminently active Christ was voluntary in complying with all his sufferings or else they had not been meritorious See also Ch. 6. Christ was in his sufferings as a voluntary Combater 1 He was lead by the Spirit that lighted on him at his Baptism into the Wildernesse as soon as ever hee was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office on purpose to try Masteries with the Devils temptations which no man else in the world might presume to do but this Captain of our salvation and in this respect all his sufferings may more fitly bee called active sufferings or active passive obedience rather than passive obedience for he put forth a ready and voluntary compliance with them and that by way of anticipation according to Covenant as a voluntary undertaker of the combate for our Redemption and this kind of obedience in his sufferings made his chastisements to be meritorious for our peace and for our healing as the Dialogue shews in p. 49. 2 Take another instance of Christs voluntary obedience in entring into the Lists with Sathan as the Captain of our salvation in all that long businesse that is called his Passion 1 He manifested himself to bee continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to bee for his apprehension and death Luke 12. 50. Ioh. 12. 23 27. c. Ioh. 13. 1. and in verse 2 3. Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand namely to order himself in every circumstance of his sufferings in his combate with Sathan according to the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for the Text saith That he knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him Joh. 6. 64. Joh. 13. 11. therefore hee was active and provoked Judas at Supper to go out saying unto him What thou doest do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and then saith hoe The Son of man goes as it is determined namely by a mutual Covenant Luke 22. 22. and then said he The Prince of this world cometh to incounter with mee with more armed violence than formerly but saith
wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his death saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wile ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should hee not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed hee should dye but the other for whom hee dyed should not live yet though it bee not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not bee both just and merciful If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter and compare them with these words of Bernard he may see as direct an opposition as is possible Hence I conclude That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard which is neer a thousand yeers space were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons kind of imputing our sins to Christ to make him guilty of his death and sufferings and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late dayes SECT V. The second thing to bee examined in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is touching the word Righteousnesse which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument doth make to be the Righteousnesse of Christ BUt I have already shewed that this word Righteousnesse is not meant of Christs Righteousnesse but of God the Fathers Righteousnesse for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Sathans Head-plot Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Pâ—iest First to combaâ—e with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse And secondly to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation and the performance of this is called his Righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly God the Father covenanted to bee reconciled and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ and his performance of this is here called The Righteousnesse of God the Father And thirdly The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ that so they might bee the fit subjects of the said Righteousnesse 2 I grant that the righteousnesse of God may bee distinguished into many other senses as Mr. Wotton hath shewed de Reconcil pec part 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must bee considered according to the context in each place where it is used but in this place Gods reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as it is expressed in verse 19. is called the righteousnesse of God in this 21. verse because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator for the compleating of a sinners righeousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins at Ball on the Covenant p. 219. least saith he it is one part or branch of Reconciliation which is a transient act conferred in time and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified or reconciled and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man the Scripture speaketh not In these words the Reader may please to take notice that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification in the party justified or reconciled and so hee makes justification to bee the first part or branch of reconciliation as Mr. Wotton doth And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification Rom. 5. 9 10. by Christs blood for the same thing merited by Christs sacrifice These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us that Gods righteousnesse procured by the Sin sacrifice of Christ in v. 21. is the same or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19. by his not imputing sin and the performance of that reconciliation or non-imputation of sin on Gods part for the sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice is called the righteousnesse of God the Father in this 21. verse and this exposition of the righteousnesse of God any indifferent Reader may see to be cleerly meant by the context though I should say no more But I will yet further evievidence that this exposition of Gods righteousnesse is no new upstart exposition but that it hath the concurrence and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus Now resteth to see what is the righteousnesse of God and it may thus be defined It is an Absolution from sins by faith through Christ And saith he that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin Sin is a defect or falling away from the Law and Will of God And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation Wherefore when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltinesse is taken away A man is absolved from his sins Ibidem Now by these things saith he it is manifest what Absolution is It is an action of God the Father whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins that is from guiltinesse and obligation to eternal death But saith he in the second place that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert therefore it is added through Christ And saith he in the third place that wee should not bee ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applyed to every one of us it is added
sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods mâ—er positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteâ—eousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Aâ—tonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary
as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The â—ree gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justificition with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their un circumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8. though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14. there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritoriouâ— procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text
a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of Moses in his exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here with the like exhortations to the Judges to cleanse the land from moral defilements by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners which else would defile the whole land yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice and to tollerate moral sinners See Lev. 18 24 25 27 28. Num. 35. 31 32 33. Psal 106. 38. Ezra 9. 11. Jer. 3. 1 2 9. Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal 24. 5. c. But it came to pass that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed and then the land was cleansed for by this act of justice though he was no Magistrate yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way to execute the office of a Magistrate hee is said to make Attonement or to reconcile God to the whole land Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33 39. These and such like instances do evidence that the Judges as they were the Representatives of the whole land might defile the whole land and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners in case they did connive at them and not execute impartial justice upon them And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to bee to bury the body before Sun-set that the land bee not defiled On the contrary when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of Gods wrath and to make Attonement for the Land O that this Exhortation of Moses might fit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates both supreme and inferiour to execute impartial justice against moral sinners that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of Gods wrath and that the land by their neglect might not be defiled And O that people would rightly use their liberty when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates to chuse such as fear God and hate sin 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law I wonder The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin therefore at Mr. Nortons unadvisedness in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land in case hee was not buried before Sun-set I grant that he or any other might bee deceived in their judgement by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition as I have shewed before but the right translation as it was in the first Editions will not afford any such Tenent if the Context be well weighed 2 I grant that a great part of the people might bee ceremonially defiled yea at sometime the greatest part but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins as Ains sheweth in Num. 9. 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved which cannot be that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person or by some one act then I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land as well as for particular persons and places for doubtlesse God would not bee wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person for hee that touched a dead person though hee dyed in his bed yea though hee were truly godly in his life time was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree and he that touched any dead person in the day time was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law as hee that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sun-set and hee that touched but the limb of a dead child was as much defiled as he that touched a whole dead child all that touched the dead though never so many were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness untill they had cleamed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19. 11 15 16 c. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged to hang on the tree after Sun-set the whole land could not be defiled therby unless every person in the land did come one by one to touch his dead carkass which is absurd to think they would do and yet it must be done in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactors carkass unburied after Sun-set And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws is very short of what it ought to be or else he would never have broached this fiction 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sun-set did not defile the land ceremonially see also n. 2. for David according to the desire of the Gibeonites which was ordered doubtless according to Gods special positive direction commanded that seven of Sauls sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree and to continue hanging so long as until
That therefore the Law in Deut. 21. 23. was peculiar to the Commonwealth of the Jews and not common to other Nations it might have been granted to him And the like may be said of divers other political Laws of Moses that they were in force onely in the land of Canaan and that neither before Moses time nor after Christs death they were in force c. I grant also that there were many Judicial Laws that were partly civil and partly ceremonial and so it may be granted that the Law in Deu. 21. 23. had some ceremonial considerations about the burial of the dead body for it defiled all that touched it But yet it will not thence follow that it defiled the whole land in case it continued unburied till after sun-set and therefore it did not typifie that Christ should bear the moral and eternal curse on the tree for our redemption which is the very point that Mr. Norton hath undertaken to make good from Deut. 21. 23. This Exposition saith Mr. Norton in p. 95. 96. in making the man that was hanged on a tree a ceremonial curse And Christ hanged on a tree a moral curse is both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture Reply 9. It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would perswade his Reader it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption First I doe not finde that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments or the second death It is objected saith Peter Martyr that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9. 1 〈◊〉 in p. 240. did not onely give his life upon the cross but also that he was made a curse and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And after a short Answer to another Objection he Answers thuâ— The second doubt faith he is concerning Christ for although he for our sakes suffered death yet was he not in very deed separated from God but his humanity was holpen when he suffered on the cross all extream pains he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake and he was counted as a blasphemer c and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree he was made a curse saith he as touching the punishment of the Law in Deut. 21. 23. and saith he he was counted as a Blasphemer and an ungodly person and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned but yet was he not by eternal damnation namely by suffering that which to the creature is eternal damnation separated from God By this answer it is evident That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree just as Chrisostom and Theephilact spake as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said ere while that his exposition was generally received but here he may see two of the antient Divineâ— and Peter Martyr cited against him and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth Fourthly Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other penal hel or inâ—ernum but his bodily death as I have cited him in Chap 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly I have also diligently perused all Tindals works and the works of Jo. Frith and of Dr. Barns being three godly Martyrs and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction and by occasion thereof they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons sense of Hell torments but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice Sixthly I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. Nortons Tenent of Hell Torments But I have not throughly searched them but in a great part I have and can find no such thing in them Let them that please search them fully Seventhly Mr. Broughton and his followers which to this day are many that are both pious and learned and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross as no Article of their faith I will cite onely two passages out of Mr. Broughton besides what I have cited in the Dialogue 1 Saith he That assertion that our Lord suffered Hell Torments In his positions on Hadâ—s p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture true modesty saith he would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption 2 Saith he to say that our Lords soul tasted the second death is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22 25. saith he in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalips is taken from the Thalmudistes and therefore by them it must be expounded And in their sense saith he it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God and agreeable to this I have shewed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa 22. and Rabbins infinitely But saith Mr. Norton to avoid manifest blasphemy Christ was never in Gods hatred Therefore he might as well conclude that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell nor the second Death seeing they are not inflicted without Gods hatred And saith Bro. in Revâ—l p. 301. N. N. missed most Atheanly more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam to say that our Lord was in the second Death 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith the Chalde doth thus expound it Let Ruben not die the second death And saith he Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus Let Ruben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall dye in the world to come And saith he in Psal 49. 11. The Chalde saith That wicked wise men die the second death and are adjudged to Gehenna And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat of Repentance c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith And this is the cutting off written in the Law as it is said in Numb 15. 31. That soul shall be cut off he shall be cut off which we
have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just as the Dialogue doth as I have cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the Second-death which is this namely That the Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like fort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inneâ—-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hâ—nged are so infamed that the carkass of uch in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4. Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters
his natural infirmities should not appear and therefore he said to Peter Shall I not drink it 4 I have shewed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christs desire that the cup might pass from him was no sin because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm for if his death had been required by a moral command then his desire that the cup might pass from him had been a sin and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also but Gods command was a meer positive command and that kind of command saith Mr. Rutherfurd did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing hee submitted his desire to Gods will The like instance hee gives of Abrahams desire when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies as the Dialogue doth that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments hee expounds it as the Dialogue doth on the Covenant page 362. But still I rather think as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17. 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without fin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Possion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 1 48. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sâ—n And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether salse that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it out wardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs or Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large
testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as hee did I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal 22. 1. We further briefly say That Christ was pleased to yeeld to sense or feeling so far 1 That he might shew himself a perfect true man a thing not easily beleeved as appears by the multitude of Heresies about this matter that sprung up soon after the first plantation of the faith there being no greater evidence to ordinary judgement at least of his perfect humanity than his being subject to the common infirmities of men Secondly To keep us from fainting and despair in the greatest trials combats and afflictions whether spiritual or corporal when God seems to forget us And thirdly As for them that think unpassionateness the Aulus Gellius a known ancient Writer in his 19. book of Noctes Atticae ch 1. 12. greatest evidence of magnanimity I commend the Disputes of two famous Philosophers recorded by Aulus Gellius Thus far speaks the said Annotation Fourthly this is observable That though many Martyrs have through the grace of constancy undergone the pains of death with joy or with little sign of their natural fear of death When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason in Martyrs then no man can express what conflict there is between nature and death which conflict was not in Christ whiles they have had the use of their sanctified reason yet afterwards as soon as their torments have astonished nature and by that means deprived them of the use of their sanctified reason then the same soul that was so fearless at first doth begin to shew the terrors of nature at the dominion of death and then no man can express what conflicts of fear and horror there is in nature against death but the manner of Christs death was far otherwise for at the utmost point of death Christs humane nature did not conflict with fear and horror as all Martyrs do But hee expressed his natural fear and horror of death beforehand in the Garden as it were in private to three of his Disciples that they might record it as a proof of his true humane nature for he did manifest it First By his speeches before he prayed And secondly in the time of his prayers but not after his prayers there was no mention of any more fear for by his prayers he had obtained a confirmation of his nature against the fear of his ignominious usage and against the fear of death I say it once more that it may be the better marked that after his prayers hee never shewed any fear of death more yea when he was at the very point of death upon the Cross hee did not express any natural strugling or striving with the pangs of death for there was no pangs in his death because the formality of it was supernatural and therefore his nature was not now subject to strive with the pangs of death as nature doth in all Martyrs the formality of his death did far surpass the death of all Martyrs because he had obtained a deliverance and a confirmation from his natural fear of death by his strong crying prayers and tears in the Garden Heb. 5. 7. So that when hee came to breath out his soul in the open view of all men both of his persecutors and of his godly friends he did without Heb. 5. 7. any trembling or strugling of nature instantly and quietly breath out his soul by his own Priestly power even whiles hee was in strength of nature and this I hope is contrary to the course of nature in the death of all Martyrs And by this last act of Christ in his death he declared himself to be our Mediator in his death and to be our High-priest in his death and sacrifice Lord saith Cyprian thou didst profess thy self before thine Cyprian de Past Christi Apostles to be sorrowful unto death and for exceeding grief didst powre forth a bloody sweat But saith hee I admire thee O Lord that being once fastened to the Cross amidst the condemned to be now neither sorrowful nor fearful but despising the punishments with thy hands lifted up to triumph over Amaleck Here you see that Cyprians judgement was That Christ was neither sorrowful nor fearful for his death when he hung upon the Cross as hee was in the Garden and therefore hee held that Christ had overcome this fear and horror of death by his prayers in the Garden And secondly That in the Garden hee did powre forth a bloody sweat for fear of his bodily death Thirdly Hee held that Christ triumphed over Amaleck that is to say over Satan by his unconquerable patience on the Cross Conclusion from the Premises Hence it follows that the two reasons of the Dialogue afore cited stand stronger and firmer than they did notwithstanding Mr. Norton hath endeavoured to shake them to nothing by his windy reasoning But in Page 58. Mr. Norton doth vindicate Calvin from the Dialogue sense to his sense Reply 9. What the Dialogue cited out of Mr. Calvin touching Christs troubled fear of death where his words run without any mention of Hell-torments was at the first useful to me and I thought that the same speeches might bee of the like good use to others especially seeing the Dialogue doth annex unto the former speeches of Calvin his expressions of Christs troubled soul-sorrows for the death of Lazarus by his weeping and groaning in spirit and troubling himself Joh. 11. 33 35. In which soul-troubles so pathetically manifested no man can imagine that he suffered any thing in soul from Gods immediate wrath or from Hell-torments and therefore why should we not likewise expound his other soul-sorrows to be in relation to his ignominious and painful death But seeing Mr. Norton is not willing to accept his words as I cited them to the sense of the Dialogue let him take Mr. Calvin on his side the truth of the Dialogue I hope may stand well enough without him and in case hee shall except against any other that I have cited for illustration I shall not much pass as long as I cite the Scripture sense according to the Context But for all this it seems that Mr. Norton is not very well pleased with Mr. Calvins judgement for in page 61. Mr. Norton doth cite him on purpose to confute him Mr. Calvin saith hee doth affirm that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men But saith Mr. Norton because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ latter Writers chuse rather to say That he suffered the punishment of the Elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Reply 10. This distinction may please such as had rather take mans word without the Scripture sense than take the pains to dig out the true Scripture sense But I wonder what difference there is betwixt this speech of Calvin
Christ covenanted to take upon him our nature of the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature to break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient in his combate notwithstanding Satan foul play to provoke him to some impatience and in that obedience he covenanted to make his soul a sacrifice which God covenanted to reward with the redemption of all the Elect and this was sully declared unto Adam by a typical sacrifice and God gave the Devil full liberty to do his worst to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to prevent his death from being a sacrifice and so to preserve his Head-plot from being broken and this is comprehended in that sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals but God could not have declared all this both to the Devil and unto Adam unless the second person had beforehand covenanted to undertake this conflict with the Devil and his instruments and unless God the Father had also covenanted that the obedience of the seed of the woman both in his conflict with Satan and in his death and sacrifice should break the Devils Head-plot and so should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect. But thirdly Observe this that I do not say that the sufferings of Christ which hee indured from the malice of Satan and his instruments were full satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death but on the contrary I say that no sufferings though never so great can make satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death by the separation of his soul from his body by his own Priestly power and therefore if it could be supposed that Christ had born the moral curse of Hell-torments according to Mr. Nortons Tenent for a thousand yeers together on the Cross yet without this his last Priestly act of death and sacrifice it could not have been a sufficient price for our redemption and the reason thereof is most cleer and evident because God had ordained by his eternal Councel and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that nothing should be accepted for full satisfaction to break the Devils Head-plot without the true bodily death of the seed of the woman made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9. 14 25 26 28. Heb. 10 9 10 12. Fourthly Yet I grant notwithstanding that all his sufferings from Satan and his instruments were ordained for the trial of All Christs sufferings were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice his obedience and so for his consecration to his Priestly Sacrifice and in that respect it was as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to the making of a sacrifice under the Law I say that both his consecration by his ignominious usage and by his long lingring tortures on the Cross and the formality of his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power must be considered as two distinct Articles of the eternal Covenant though they must also be conjoyned for the making of that sacrifice that God covenanted to accept for Heb 2. 10. Heb. 59. Ioh 19. 30. The sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power See also further in Reply 13. mans redemption his sufferings as a Martyr from the malice of Satan was ordained for the trial of his perfect obedience and so consequently for the perfecting of his Priestly consecration as these Scriptures do witness Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 8 9. Heb. 7. 28. And when Moses put the blood of consecration on Aarons right Ear Thumb and great Toe it figured saith Ains on Lev. 8. 24. the sufferings of Christ whose hands and feet were peirced and then as soon as his consecration was finished which was finished by finishing all the sufferings that were written of him then hee declared the same by saying It is finished Job 19. 30. And then at the same instant without any delay he first bowed his head and then he made his life a sacrifice by giving up the ghost and this was in a differing order from that death that comes by the course of nature for by the course of nature men do hold up the head as long as life is in the body and then as soon as the soul is departed the head falls but Christ while he was in the strength of nature did first bow his head and then hee gave up the ghost And thus he performed his death as the Mediator of the New Covenant by his own Priestly power in both his natures according to the eternal Covenant And in this last act by vertue of the said eternal Covenant lyes 1 The formality of his death 2 The formality of his sacrifice And 3 The formality of all satisfaction Heb. 9. 14 15 16. And therefore from hence it necessarily follows that till this last act was done no sufferings that went before though he be supposed by Mr. Norton to have suffered the essential torments of Hell though never so long and never so strong could bee accounted of God for satisfaction for mans Redemption Fifthly All this was made manifest to fallen Adam by Gods declared decree in Gen. 3. 15. as I have formerly noted and I think it needful to repeat it again with some inlargement 1 God proclaimed an utter enmity between Christ the seed of the Woman and the Devil in the Serpent and in all other instruments of his malice 2 Hee told the Devil that hee might arm himself as well as hee could that the seed of that deceived Woman should break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to all the positive Laws of the combate notwithstanding his foul play and his malicious stratagems to disturb him in the course of his obedience 3 Hee told the Devil that hee should have full liberty to use him as a vilde Malefactor and at last to peirce him in the foot-soals on the Cross to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to hinder his death from being a sacrifice of satisfaction if he could In this manner I say God declared the plotform of the eternal counsel and Covenant of the Trinity for mans redemption and therefore whatsoever is spoken after this of the Messiah and of the work of Redemption it must have reference to this first declaration for all that is spoken after this is but a comment upon this and all Christs sufferings are included in these two words 1. He shall be the seed of the woman and he shall be touched both inwardly with the feeling of our infirmities in all his voluntary passions Secondly Outwardly Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And hence it is plain that all his outward sufferings were to be from Satan and his instruments and all his inward sufferings from
is point blank against Mr. Norton Eleventhly Cyril de Rectafide ad Reginas l. 1. saith If wee conceive Christ to be God incarnate and suffering in our flesh the death of his flesh alone sufficeth for the redemption of the world Twelfthly Fulgentius and fifteen Bishops of Africa made this confession of their Faith The death of the Son of God which he suffered in his flesh alone destroyed in us both our deaths to wit the death of the soul and body But Mr. Norton holds this confession made in the Dialogue to bee Heresie Thirteenthly Fulgentius ad Transimundum l. 3. c. 7. saith When the flesh onely died and was raised again in Christ the Son of God is said to have died Ibidem c. 5. The flesh dying not onely the Deity but the soul of Christ cannot be shewed to have been dead also Fourteenthly Gregory on Job l. 4. c. 17. Coming to us who were in the death of the spirit and flesh Christ brought his ONE DEATH to us and loosed both our deaths his single death he applied to our double death and dying vanquished our double death Fifteenthly August in ser 162. saith But the immortal righteous Son of God coming to die for us in whose flesh because there could be no sin he suffered the punishment of sin without the guilt thereof wherefore he admitted for us the second part of the first death that is to say the death of the body onely by which he took from us the dominion of sin and the pain of eternal punishment And saith he in Ser. 129. There is a first and a second death of the first death there are two parts one when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator and the other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods Justice The second death is the everlasting torment of body and soul This distinction of the first and second death Mr. Norton disputes against And in Epist 99. He saith Surely the soul of Christ was neither dead with any sin nor punished with damnation which are the two ways how the death of the soul may possibly be understood But Mr. Norton hath found out a third way for the death of Christs soul by his penal Hell in this world which he makes to have the same essential torments that are in fiery Gehenna 16. Beda in Homil. Feria 4. in Quadragesima saith Christ coming to us that were in death of Body and Spirit suffered onely one death that is the death of the flesh and freed us of both our deaths he applied his ONE DEATH to our double death and vanquished them both 17. Albinus in Quaest on Genesis saith What is meant by this Thou shalt die the death It meaneth a double death in man to wit Soul and Body the death of the Soul is when God for sin forsaketh it the death of the Body is when through any necessity the body is deprived of the soul This double death of ours Christ destroyed with his single death for he died onely in the flesh for a time but in soul he never died who never sinned 18. Bernard ad milites Templi c. 11. saith Of our two deaths whereof the one is the desert of sin the other the due punishment Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles he dyed willingly and onely in body he meriteth for us life and righteousness Had Mr. Norton lived in their days durst he have condemned this Doctrine for Heresie as now he doth I trow not he might rather have expected a sharp censure from them 19. Bullenger on Isa 53. 10. Homil. 153. saith Whole Christ was the expiation of our sins though during that time neither his Divinity suffered nor his soul dyed but his flesh whereof the blessed Fathers Vigilius and Fulgentius have religiously discoursed against Hereticks 20. No other death but a bodily death was typified as I have shewed from Lev. 17. 11. and this also was typified by the death of the High Priest which was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant for the redemption of the exiled person that was exiled by the Law for unwitting murder for by the Law he was to continue an exile as long as the High Priest lived but as soon as the High Priest was dead be it longer or shorter in time then not till then the exiled person was thereby redeemed from the avenger of blood Num. 35. 25. and this makes the reason of the type to be the more eminent because in Numb 35. 25. all other Nations the unwitting Man-slayer is freed at the first Sessions of Justice but by Gods positive Ordinance in Israel he must continue an exile till the death of the High Priest hee could not be redeemed sooner nor by any other way from the danger of the avenger of blood but onely by the death of the High Priest this is an evident type of our redemption by the bodily death and sacrifice of our High Priest Christ Jesus 21. The Reader shall find in several other Chapters several other Divines that do accord with these Hence two Conclusions do follow First That Christs soul was not spiritually dead with the second death as Mr. Norton doth unadvisedly hold for an Orthodox Evangelical Tenet Secondly That his death was a true bodily death namely such a bodily death as in the formality of it was a Sacrifice But Mr. Norton in p. 70. saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should onely suffer a bodily death And saith he in p. 59. It had been of none effect if he had suffered onely a bodily death and to this effect he speaks in p. 170 173 174. 160 162 c. 22. But for the better clearing of the true nature of Christs death I will out of Christopher Carlile describe the vital soul See Carlile in his descent p. 144 c. Nephes saith Carlile is never applied to the immortal soul in all the Bible 2 Saith he Nephes which the Greeks have translated Psyche A true description of the vital soul the Latines animam the English soul hath its name in Hebrew Chaldee Greek and Latine of breathing because it cooleth and refresheth with respiring and breathing page 145. 3 Nephes consisteth in blood breath life vital spirit affections and passions c. As for example 1 Nephes is the blood Lev. 17. 4 10 11. the life of every living creature is in the blood And this Nephes is mortal and therefore it is called Nephes Caja but the immortal spirit is called Neshama Cajim the spirit of lives This is immortal and dyes not as Nephes Caja doth 2 This Nephes is often put for the vital soul as in Gen. 35. 18. Gen. 44. 30. Exod. 4. 19. Jos 2. 13. Isa 53. 10 11 12. c. in page 149. 3 Nephes is put for the mind heart and inward parts Prov. 16. 24. Prov. 19. 18. Prov. 23. 6. Prov. 25. 12. 4 Nephes is put for the
that from the pitching of the field of old Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him as for the assaults of hell that he saw inlarged against him that he was so full of sorrow and anguish This testimony to the truth of Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides saith thus on the word Alwaies in Act. 2. 25. Always saith he even in his forest agonies 1 Before the sweaty Agony his soul was troubled yet then he called God Father Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith he knew God heard him alwaies and therefore even then he must needs have comfort 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow yet then he could still call God Father Matth. 26. 37 38 39 42. 4 When the betrayer was come and the Band had seized on him yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou said he to Peter that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall set before mee more than twelve legions of Angels 5 When he was upon the cross and cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Doth not the very fore-front of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God Mat. â—7 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father as we see and knew his father heard him ever then surely he had comfort in his Father ever yea if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name when ever he did mention the name else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christs mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God when he began to be amazed and to be very heavy as Mr. Norton doth affirm SECT 5. Christs Agony and Luk. 22. 44. Examined MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed saith the Dialogue it will appear that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath but from his natural fear of death onely because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure as the Prophets did foretel Add to these pains of his mind his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death for a time and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer until he had overcome it Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Reply 19. I have already replyed to this very answer in substance in the first Section of this Chapter But yet I reply further with the Dialogue That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature together with our true natural but yet sinless infirmities Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions he could not chuse but abhor death more than any sinful man and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem but at his last Supper and in the Garden when his death was nigh at hand he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it first to his Disciples and then to God in his prayers Matth. 26. 37 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him to condemn him and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross as a sinful malefactor I say the consideration of this usage could not chuse but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ than the like can do to us because of the pure constitution of his nature as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation as the pure nature of Christ might do and did and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours But saith he Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death which is denied But in case such a Tenent were iâ—deed held forth in the book of God then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon iâ— seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction but the contrary is evident to me namely that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan and upon his sacrifice as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Savior fell into such an Agony the night before his death seeing it was not an easie thing to alter the property of nature from a desire to live to a desire to die and that not for his own end and benefit but for the sake of the Elect onely and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will he must observe the due time of every action and so on as it follows in Mr. Nortons citation in page 64 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his natural death only is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
that which hee feared Observe I pray That Dr. Hall doth speak this of Christs natural fear of his bodily death And secondly This also is worthy of due observation that Christ must overcome his natural fear of death before hee could make his vital soul a sacrifice according to Gods command for it was Gods command and his own Covenant also that he should not suffer any to take away his vital soul from him But secondly to lay it down of himself namely as a sacrifice by his own will desire and power but this his humane nature could not do until hee had overcome his natural fear and he had no better way to overcome his natural fear than by his fervent wrastling prayers as it is expressed in Luke 22. 44. and Heb. 5. 7. Hee might not in this case use the power of his Godhead to make his nature impassible because hee had covenanted to enter the Lists with his Combater Satan in the infirmities of our humane nature and he had no better way to get a confirmation like Armor of proof to his humane nature against this fear of his unnatural ignominious death than by his earnest sweating prayers in which he was heard because of his godly fear But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. The word Agony in Luke 22. 44. signifies the sorrows of Combaters A true description of Christs Agony Luk. 22. 44. entring the Lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life A metaphor taken from the Possion of conflicting affections in the greatest eminentest and most sensible perils and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men Reply 21. This description of the word Agony I do acknowledge to bee very true and good But in his explication of it to Christ he doth again spoyl it because hee makes the Agony of Christ to be his conflicting with his Fathers vindicative wrath and with eternal death whereas according to the true sense of Scripture It was his natural fear conflicting with his ignominious torturing death which by his own Covenant with his Father he was to suffer from his combater Satan and in that respect he also covenanted that his true humane nature which he would assume from the seed of the deceived sinful woman should be eminently touched with the dread of his cruel and ignominious usage according to the true purport of Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 87. Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony in Luk. 22. 44. Reply 22. I grant it was an Agony in general but not from his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds but from his sufferings from the malice of his Combater Satan and for the better understanding of the true nature of his agony I will ranck it into two sorts First Into his active agony in the Garden Secondly Into his passive agony or rather into his active-passive agony from the time of his apprehension to his death on the cross 1 I will speak of his active agony and that was begun in some degree before his last Supper as it is evident by Joh. 12. 27. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father Joh. 12. 27. save me from this hour namely from the dread of this hour but not absolutely from the hour of his sufferings as the next words do evidence but saith he for this cause came I to this hour And though it is said by a * Sometimes the passive verb is put for the active See Ainsw in Deut. 31. 17. and in Parcus reconciling the Greek in Rom. 4 3. with the Hebrew in Gen. 15. 6. he saith these two are all one God imputed Faith and Faith by God was imputed so also he poured out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. is in the Seventy and in Rom. 4. 25. he was delivered to death And saith Ball on the Covenant p. 60. Active verbs are expounded passively among the Hebrews See also Ains in Psa 36 3. 109 13. 40 15. 122. 5. Gen. 20. 6. Lev. 26. 1 11. passive verb my soul is troubled yet Joh. 11. 33. he is said to trouble himself And hence it follows by these two Scriptures compared that his conflicting affections were active for his sensitive will was in an absolute subjection to his rational will in which he was the absolute Lord Commander of all his affections they did his will at his beck and this excellent property belongs onely to the humane nature of Christ it is his personal priviledge for our natural passions in him were above our natural power because nature in him did never go before his will as Damasen speaks in Reply 26. 2 The thought of his sufferings was much in his mind when he was at his last Supper and therefore while he was at Supper he bad Judas to do what he had to do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and when Judas was gone about his treachery he did manifest that he had very sad apprehensions of what evils he was to suffer for Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands Joh. 13. 3. namely knowing that the Father had given the management of the whole combate into the hands of his true humane nature as it was accompanied with true humane passions He knew it was his duty to stir up his true humane conflicting affections in a more eminent manner than other men at the approach of his ignominious and painful sufferings according to the most eminent and tender constitution of his nature above the nature of other men 3 It is also evident that the expressions of the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark do relate to the same agony that Luke doth and therefore Tindal doth translate Ademonein Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark 14. 33. which we translate very heavy by the word Agony in both places just as he doth Agon in Luk. 22. 44. But as soon as Christ had obtained a confirmation against his said natural fear by his earnest prayers in the Garden then his inward agony by his conflicting affections had an end I say after he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation he never had any more conflicting affections in the consideration of those evils he was to suffer as he had before he had prayed as I have formerly noted it But as soon as he had obtained his request by his earnest prayers then he came to his Disciples and said to them as a resolved Champion Come the hour is come Behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners Rise up let us go Mark 14. 41 42. namely let us not Mar. 14. 41 42. rise up to run away through fear but let us go and meet those arch-Instruments of Satan the sons of Belial as Ainsw calls them in Gen. 13. 13. or as Trap saith in Matth. 26. 46. Rise let us be going to meet that death which till he
thy worst to disturb his patience c. God speaks thus to Satan in Zachary just as he did in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt peirce the seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a wicked malefactor Weight the whole Text in Zachary which runs thus Awake O Sword against my Shepherd That is to say rouse up thy self O Satan and bring a band of men armed with swords and staves against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow as we see he did in Mat. 26. 47. Smite thou the shepherd for I have given thee full liberty without any restraint to use thy best skill to make him a sinful malefactor and to smite him as a sinful malefactor that thou mayst disturb his patience if thou canst and so mayst make him a transgressor as thou didst Adam Or it may be read at it is in Matthew I will smite the shepherd For I God have given Satan full liberty to smite him that I may see the proof of his patience and obedience And in this form of speach God is said to afflict Job and therefore Job said The Lord hath taken away my cattle and my children Job 1. In these words you see that Job ascribes all the evils that fell upon him to God because God permitted Satan to do what he did and therefore saith Job in Chap. 19. 21. The hand of God hath touched me In these words he called the Devil Gods hand because God gave the Devil leave to afflict him so as he did to try his patience and we see that Jobs patience in his first encounter with Satan was not disturbed And in this sense the word I must be understood in Matthew I will sinite the shepherd that is to say I God will give Satan leave to smite the shepherd This is the true sense of Matthew and therefore this is no proof that God smote Christs soul from his immediate vindicative wrath The second Scripture to be examined is Isa 53. 10. It pleased Isa 53. 20. the Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief when he shall set out or give his soul to be a Trespass Offering or as the Seventy read it a sin For this phrase set see Ains on Gen. 21. 13. 27. 37. and in Psa 8. 2. and Gen. 9. 12. 17. 5. This Scripture being rightly interpreted doth not mean that God was pleased to bruise Christ actively and so to put him to grief by his immediate wrath But it means that it pleased the Lord passively to put that is to permit and suffer Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief and so speaks our larger Annotation on these words He put him to grief or as some saith the Annotation he suffered him to be put to pain or torment because this form saith the Annotation hath oft in it a notion of permission as in Psal 37. 33. Psal 119. 10 116. and Isa 63. 17. and see more for this form in Reply 22. and in Ains in Psa 39. 9. and in Psa 16. 10. In this sense I say It pleased the Lord to bruise Christ and to put him to grief and just so it pleased the Lord to put an utter enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived sinful woman in Gen. 3. 15. there the Lord appointed the Devil by Gen. 3. 15. his permissive Commission to combate for the victory with the seed of the woman and in case the Devil could prevail to disturb his patience then the Victory was to go on his side but in case the seed of the woman did persevere in his patience and obedience through all the Devils ignominious trials and at last in that perfect obedience did make his vital soul a Sacrifice by breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power then the victory was to go on his side and then hee was to have the prize namely the Redemption of all the Elect. And in this sense also is Isa 53. 5. to bee understood He was Isa 53. 5. wounded for our trangressions he was bruised for our iniquities God may be said to do this though not from his immediate wrath because he permitted Satan to do all this as I have expounded these words formerly And in this sense it is said in Psal 69. 27. They persecuted him whom thou hast smitten God is here said to smite Christ but yet not from his immediate wrath but by Satan and his Instruments God permitted Satan to do his worst to Christ to manifest the perfection of his obedience for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice but the Devils end was to disturb his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice And thus it pleased the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief namely by Satan and his Instruments and not by Gods immediate wrath And this 〈◊〉 beleeve is the plain genuine sense of Isaiah And because I judge this interpretation to bee of necessary consequence I will once more repeat it with some inlargement It pleased the Lord according to the counsel of his own will which hee first declared to us in Gen. 3. 15. to permit Satan to enter the Lists with the seed of the deceived woman to deceive him if he could and to that end he gave him his full liberty to deceive him by fraud or to provoke him by force to some sinful disturbance or other And thus it pleased the Lord to permit Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief by an ignominious and long lingring violent death to disturb his patience and obedience if hee could even at the same time when his soul shall set or give it self to bee a Trespass-offering that so hee might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and thereby might save his first grand Head-plot from being broken And it pleased the Lord also according to the counsel of his own will to Covenant to and with the Mediator that in case he held constant in his obedience through all Satans malicious stratagems and at last in that perfect obedience did give his soul to be a Trespass-offering then his obedience in his said sufferings should be for his perfect consecration and then his death should be accepted as an acceptable sacrifice of Reconciliation for all the Elect and then Gods Covenant with him was that hee should see his seed and prolong his dayes and that the pleasure of the Lord for mans actual Regeneration and Reconciliation should prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton doth often torment this heavenly sense of Isaiah with a contrary for hee makes Christ to combate with Gods immediate wrath and to suffer as a legal sinner and as our legal Surety from the judicial vindicative wrath of God even from his judicial vindicative Judgement-seat as in page 55 63 85 122 143 165 192 213 39 c. The third Scripture to bee examined is Rom. 8. 32. God spared not his
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue M. Norton passeth over never speaks to it first or last which is this He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice must be a Priest but the death of Christ was a Sacrifice therefore he that takes away his life formally must be the Priest Hence the Dialogue infers that the Roman Souldiers did not take away his life formally because they were Executioners rather than Priests neither did his Fathers wrath take away his life formally because he was not the Priest and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself and therefore none but he must take away his life formally Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument but he passeth by this and pleads that Christs suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments was full satisfaction and thence he must also hold that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christs death Heb. 9. 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion when there is not one Text nor I beleeve one Classical Author who assirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrar plentiful Texts and Testimondes that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9. 12. and 6 9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus But also the Scriptures themselves in saying The Jews did not actually put Christ to death Reply 23. I have shewed immediately afore that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews with murthering the Lord of life yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors some ancient and some later that concur with the Dialogue That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice 1 Athanasius cont Arianos Orat. 4. saith To have power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again this is not the property of men but it is the power of the Son of God for no man dyeth by his own power but by necessity of nature and that against his will but Christ being God had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body and to resume the same again when hee would 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9. saith Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh when he saith None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17 18. down and power to take it again Let us consider what he meaneth who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death This neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus for if Christ had dyed as the Theeves did that were crucified with him he could not have said That he laid down his soul of himself but after the manner of such as dye but now Jesus crying with a strong voyce gave up the ghost and as a King left his body his power greatly appeared in this that at his own free power and will leaving his body he dyed 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur Chr. Orat. 1. saith Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself of whom dependeth all power how with full and sovereign power and not by necessity of nature he severed his soul from his body as he said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again 4 Turtullian de Resur carnis cap. 48. saith thus The Lord though he carried about a soul fearing unto death yet not falling by death 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith With a faint voyce or rather speechless we dye that are of the earth but he which came from heaven breathed out his soul with a loud voyce Ibid. ad Hedibiam Q. 8. Wee must say it was a shew of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again yea the Centurion hearing him say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and streight way of his own accord to send forth his spirit moved with the greatness of his wonder said Truly this was the Son of God 6 Chrysostome in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith Therefore Christ cryed with a loud voyce that hee might shew this to be done by his own power Mark saith That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead and the Centurion also therefore chiefly beleeved because he saw Christ dye of his own accord and power 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith By so doing the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare that he had his whole life and death in his own free power wherefore Mark saith that Pilate not without admiration asked if Christ were already dead he addeth likewise that the Centurion chiefly for that reason beleeved because hee saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry and signification of great power 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini saith What intreaty for life shall wee think was there where the soul was both sent out with power and recalled with power 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund lib. 3. saith Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would and take it again when he would how great power might the God-head of Christ have And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John on these words None taketh my soul from me saith No birth-Law taketh my soul from me no incroaching time that tameth all things nor necessity which is unchangeable counsel but ruler of my self I of my own accord yeeld up my willing soul 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voyce sent
forth the Spirit saith In that the Evangelist saith Christ sent out his Spirit he sheweth it is a point of Divine power to send out the soul As Christ himself said None can take my soul from me Ibid. In Mark 15. he saith For none hath power to send out the soul but he that is the Creator of souls 12 Theophilact in Matth. 27. saith Jesus cryed with a loud voyce that we should know it was true which he said I have power to lay down my soul for not constrained but of his own accord he dismissed his soul Ibid. Saith he in Mar. 15. The Centurion seeing that he breathed out his soul so like a Commander of death wondered and confessed him Ibid. Saith he in Luk. 23. for he died not like other men but as a Master of death 13 Lyra in Mat. 27. on these words Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his soul saith Whereby it appeareth that voyce was not natural but miraculous Because a man afflicted with great and long torment and through such affliction near unto death could not so cry by any strength of nature 14 Austin de Tri. lib. 4. c. 13. saith It is the death of the Spirit to be forsaken of God as it is the death of the body to be forsaken of the Spirit and this is the punishment in the death of the body that the spirit because it willingly forsook God should unwillingly leave the body neither can the spirit leave the body when it will unless it offer some violent death to the body The Spirit of the Mediator did plainly prove that he came to the death of his flesh by no punishment of sin in that he forsook not his flesh by any means against his will but quia voluit quando voluit quomodo voluit Because he would when he would and as he would Therefore he said I have power to lay down my soul and power to take it again no man taketh it from me but I have power to lay it down of my self and this those that were present greatly marvelled at as the Gospel observeth when after that loud voyce he presently gave up the Ghost for they that were fastened to the tree were tormented with a long death wherefore the two Theeves had their legs broken that they might die but Christ was wondered at because he was found dead which thing we read Pilat marvelled at when Christs body was asked of him to be buried Three things are remarkable in these words of Austin 1 That the death of the body was inflicted on all mankind for the punishment of sin in which death the soul must depart from the body against her will and not when she would or as she would 2 That the manner of Christs death was clean contrary to ours because he gave up his spirit by his own accord and power when he would and as he would 3 That his giving up the Ghost so presently upon his loud prayer was wondered at by the slanders by and by Pilat himself when he heard it 15 Bernard Feria 4. Heb. panosa saith Christ alone had power to lay down his soul none took it from him bowing his dead being obedient to the death he gave up the Ghost who can so easily sleep when he will To die is a great infirmity but so to die was plainly an exceeding power he onely had power to lay down his soul who onely had like free power to take it again having the rule of life and death 16 Ambros De Incar Dom. Sacram. c. 5. saith Christ having power in himself to lay aside his body and take it again he sent forth his soul he lost it not 17 Eusebius Demon. Evang. l. 1. c. 8. saith When no man had power over Christs soul he himself of his own accord laid it down for man Ibidem lib. 3. ch 6. So loosed from all force and Resting free himself of himself made the departure from his body 18 Erasmus in his Paraphrase in Luk. 23. saith Jesus when with a mighty cry he had said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit breathed out his soul to make it manifest to all that he did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying but streight way upon a strong cry and words distinctly pronounced he laid down his life as of his own accord Ibid. In Mark 15. When the Centurion that stood over-right at a Minister and Witness of his death and had seen many dye with punishment when hee saw Jesus besides the manner of other men after a strong cry presently to breath out his soul said Truly this man was the Son of God 19 Musculus in Matth. 27. saith That Christ sending forth his soul with a loud voyce is a proof of a greater power than may be found in a man dying whereby he sheweth that he laid off his soul of his own accord answerable to that I have power to lay down my soul and to take it again to which end John saith that bowing his head he gave up the Ghost others first die and then their heads fall but he first layeth down his head and then of his own accord delivereth up his soul to his Father 20 Gualter in Joh. 6. 9. saith But let us see the manner of Christs death who as John writeth with bowing down his head yeelded up the spirit Luke saith he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Here find we manifest Arguments of his Divinity which the Centurion and others observed as some of the Evangelists witness 1 That cry and distinct pronouncing of his last words sheweth a power and vertue more than humane for we know that men dying so faint that most of them cannot speak be it never so softly 2 He dieth when he will of himself yea and layeth off his soul with authority to shew himself Lord of life and death which is an evident proof of his divine power 21 Marlorat on these words in Matth. 27. Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his spirit saith Christ declareth his Majesty in that he layeth down his soul not when men constrain him but when himself will whereupon Pilat marvelled that Christ was so soon dead and the Lord himself said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it again to which it appertaineth that is written he bowing his head gave up his spirit For other men first die and then their heads hang but Christ first laid down his head and then voluntarily rendred his soul into the hands of his father 22 Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue pag. 101. speaks pertinently to the judgements of these Divines and cites Austin concurring with him 23 Mr. John Smith of Clavering in his grounds of Religion pag. 59. asketh this Question How did Christ die Ans He dyed not with extremity of pain as others
do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as if a man should put off his cloathes Or else secondly That he died of his own accord The first of these two ways is active and the similitude as if a man put off his cloaths I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard for both of them use this similitude to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body 26 John White of Dorchester in his Way to the Tree of Life page 186. saith at lastly When he was nailed to the Cross hee voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father as it is evident both in that he was dead a good space before the two Theeves that were crucified with him whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they and besides by yeelding up his life when it was yet whole in him as it evidently appeared by his loud cry which he uttered at the very instant of his death as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37 39 and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life according to the will of his Father for his peoples sins And Mr. Perkins on the Creed p. 141. agreeth thus far That the state and condition of our Saviours body on the Cross was such that he might have lived longer yet saith he by the Council of God he must to die at that place at that time and at that hour where and when he died And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 yeers exactly cut out Dan. 9. 24. 27 John Trap in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus Jesus cried with a loud voyce therefore saith he he laid down his life at his own pleasure for by his loud out-cry it appeared that he could have lived longer if he had listed for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body but much greater in his soul And saith Trap in Joh. 19. 33. He took his own time to die Joh. 19. 33. and therefore in vers 30. it is said He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost And saith he he cried also with a loud voyce and dyed which shewes that hee wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer if it had pleased him 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks pag. 492. in Quarto And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons over-bold and false charge But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse the one opposeth not the other Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was com But I say also that had they been put to answer this Question Whether did the formality of Christs satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost They would soon have answered That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience by his own Priestly power and the reason is plain because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods attonement and there can bee no formality of a sacrifice but by giving up the ghost or in case any shall deny this Answer I beleeve they will intangle themselves in other inconveniences that they cannot escape as long as they deny the said Answer 2 I say further That the one doth most evidently oppose the other namely in the formality of satisfaction for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christs spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death and sometimes contradicts that and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before his death was compleated as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm then the formality of his death and sacrifice was altogether needless as to the point of satisfaction which is high blasphemy to affirm Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth joyn his spiritual death and his bodily death together in the point of satisfaction as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death as in pag. 122 153 174 213 c. And thus he makes Christ to dye in a cloud for he makes the soul of Christ to depart out of his body under the cloud of Gods vindicative wrath when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit But in page 32. he doth contradict this for there he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second death before he suffered his natural death And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death In both these places you see that he doth hold That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ And hence it follows that he doth most dangerously affirm that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine This reason drawn from the final cause of Christs sufferings is most derogatory to the infinit worth of Christs bloody sacrifice On the other hand when hee makes him to dye formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God Hee makes the Father to be the
yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijâ—b 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 any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus Sixthly Christ doth still make another addition to set forth the transcendent nature of his death This Commandement saith he I have received of my Father no other man ever had or shall have the like positive Command to be both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death as I have If Abraham had offered up Isaac in sacrifice by a formal death yet that Priest and Sacrifice had been in two distinct persons and so Isaac could not have been a compleat Mediator in his death But saith Christ It is my Fathers Commandement that I must bee the Mediator of the New Testament through death Heb. 9. 15 16. therefore I must be both Priest and Heb. 9. 15 16. Sacrifice in one and the same person and not in two persons This peculiar positive Commandement 〈◊〉 have received of my Father it is proper only to my person and office as I am ordained to be the only Mediator between God and man in my death and sacrifice Christ saith Mr. Ball was Lord of his own life and therefore hee had power to lay it down and take it up And this See Ball on the Covenant p. 287. power saith he he had not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union but by vertue of a peculiar Command Constitution and Designation to that service Joh. 10. 18. And saith Grotius The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant with his Father And hence it follows if there had not been a voluntary Covenant See Grotius in his War and Peace part 1. 〈◊〉 36. preceding there could not have been any Commandement used by the first Person over the second Person and therefore this Commandement to lay down his life must not be understood of a supreme moral Command as Mr. Norton understands it for in page 103. he saith This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legal obedience And saith he in page 192. For the Mediator to suffer death as our Surety in a way of justice is an act of legal obedience but by the Commandement which Christ received from his Father I understand the Decree of God that the conditions of the eternal Covenant should effectually be performed causing such a thing to come to pass effectually and so God is said to command his own Mercy and to command his own blessed Promises to come to pass See Ains in Psal 42. 9. and in Psal 105. 8. and in Psal 133. 3. and in Gen. 50. 16. and in Lev. 25. 21. Seventhly Put these two speeches together I lay down my life for my sheep Joh. 10. 15. And secondly I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again verse 18. and they do plainly shew that the true nature of my death is to be considered both as it is a Martyrdome from my malicious Adversary Satan and as it is a sacrifice in the formality of it by my own Priestly power And therefore Eighthly In both these considerations my Father doth love me verse 17. and hee hath testified his loving acceptance both of my person and of this service of mine First By his own voyce from heaven at my extrinsecal Instalment Matth. 3. 17. And secondly Aâ— my Transfiguration when he sent Moses and Elias to inform my Disciples of my Departure which I should shortly after accomplish by my death at Jerusalem Then there came a voyce out of the Cloud saying This is my well-beloved Son in whose Combate and Sacrifice which he is shortly to perform at Jerusalem I am well pleased satisfied and reconciled for the redemption Luke 9. 31. 35. of all the Elect Luke 9. 31 35. These eight Considerations taken from the Text and laid together do cleerly evidence That the manner of Christs laying down his life for his sheep is of a transcendent nature to the manner of Peters laying down his life in Martyrdome for Christ though Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly compare the manner of their death to be alike without making any difference by which means hee doth beguile both his own soul and his Reader of the comfort of the full sense of this blessed Scripture of John 10. 17 18. And Tindal doth declare his sense of this Scripture by him translation which goes thus Therefore doth my Father love mee because I put my life from me that I might take it again no man takes it from me but I put it away of my self I have power to put it from me and power to take it again Hence I gather from this phrase I have power to put my life from me that he held as the Ancient Divines did That Christ put his life from him as a man puts off his cloaths for so the Ancient Divines use the comparison and saith Cyril Derecta fide without constraint of any Christ of himself laid down his own soul for us It is evident that the Devil and his Instruments did use constraint as much as they could devise to force his soul out of his body But saith Cyril he laid down his soul for us not by their constraint but at his pleasure And saith Epiphaâ—ius Contra Ariomanitas Haeresi 69. The Deity together with the soul did move to forsake the sacred body But saith Mr. Norton in page 162. Christ had less strength of nature left to bear his Torments than the Theeves had Therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it Reply 26. It is granted by the Ancient Divines that Christ had voluntary weakness but not necessary weakness of nature by the justice of Gods curse as sinners have 2 I have formerly shewed That Christ was not appointed to combate with Satan and his Instruments by the power of his divine nature but by his humane nature alone which he voluntary assumed together with our true natural infirmities of grief fear sorrow c. that so he might bee touched with the sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings from his proclaimed Combater Satan and therefore for the better manifestation of his said voluntary infirmities for necessary infirmities as we have he had none his God-head put forth a power to
this ignorance both of the Jews and Romans did no whit exempt them from being the true murderers of the Lord of life in as high a degree as if his God-head had not interposed to hinder their killing power as we may see by that eminent example of Justice that was done by Darius upon such like murderers of Daniel for after that Darius was come to the Lyons Den and perceived that God had interposed his power between the fierce devouring nature of the ravenous Lyons and their executive power and that Daniel was not formally killed by them he did not in that respect excuse Daniels accusers from being the true murderers of Daniel but on the contrary he did adjudge them to be Daniels true murderers and therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Job 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth-formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10. compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5. 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of favour Heb. 10. 10. The word Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness
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 13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long disâ—curse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge with the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sinâ— Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansing and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctifie them or make them holy from the defilement of all their legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if the bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers tâ—at could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that
it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods Reconciliation or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation doth make a beleeving sinner not onely without blemish and spotless but holy also And so the word sanctifie and cleanse in Ephes 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy and without blemish in the same verse Sixthly I pray note this also That the holiness of Christs person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness as it is affirmed by some unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christs Righteousness formally saith he is incommunicable to any other our union with Christ saith he makes us not the same person with him to be the same subject of the same accident Righteousness This Section I have added onely by way of Parenthesi Seventhly Seeing it is acknowledged that perfection doth consist in action and seeing it is also acknowledged that the perfection of all Christs obedience was to be evidenced not onely by his perfect patience in all his sufferings from his Combater Satan but especially in the formality of his death and sacrifice why should it not be formally done by his own priestly action And why then doth Mr. Norton detract so much from the perfection of his Priestly action in the formality of his death and sacrifice by ascribing the formality of it to physical causes onely as his words repeated a little before do testifie But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death than what is inflicted justly for sin c. Reply 28. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should detract so much from the perfection of Christs Priestly action in making his death to be a sacrifice as to make it to be nothing else but a co-acted death according to Gods sentence denounced on fallen Adam as the punishment of his original sin in Gen. 3. 19. For as Lupset saith well In our death the body doth in a manner leave the soul before the soul leaveth the body For saith he it is the body by it self forsaking life that causeth the soul to depart Hence I infer What perfection of Christs Priestly active obedience can there be in such a kind of forced death as this is But on the other hand look upon the death of Christ as it was to be made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power and then we may see it to be a death of Covenant onely and so consequently to be an active mediatorial death and sacrifice because hee must bee our Mediator in his death But in Reply 16. I have spoken more fully to this objection Therefore for a conclusion I will yet once more distinguish upon the death of Christ 1 The long action of his bloody combate with Satan and his Instruments gave the name to his being killed and slain 2 His last short act in breathing our sending out or puting out his immortal spirit when he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit gave the name of formality to his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power When Christ said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. he did not breath out his soul through the decay of his natural spirits as the Saints do when they say the same words as in Psal 31. 5. Nor as Stephen did when he said Lord Jesus receive Psa 31. 5. my spirit Act. 7. 59. For their death is co-acted by Gods Justice on original sin Gen. 3. 19. But Christ made it evident that his death was not co-acted by weakness of Nature by his crying out with a loud voyce when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that instant gave up the Ghost by which loud out-cry he made it evident that he was in full strength of nature when he died as it is noted before by Mr. White of Dorchester and by Mr. Trap and others and this last act gave the formality 1 To his Obedience 2 To his Death and Sacrifice 3 To the price of full satisfaction For as I have formerly shewed from Exod. 30. 12. It was Gods voluntary Covenant that Exod. 30. 12 15 16. The death of Christ as it was made a sacrifice of reconciliation by the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity was the full price of mans redemption made the half shekels to be the full price for the redemption of the lives of the Israelites and this price was imployed or part of it at least to buy publick Sacrifices which were ordained to make an Attonement for their lives as I have opened it in the Dialogue p. 86. namely this price was accounted by God to be in the place and in the stead of their lives as vers 15 and 16. doth declare And thus their lives were redeemed with a price and yet materially it was not the full price of their lives but formally it was the full price of their lives by vertue of Gods free Covenant In like sort Gods voluntary Covenant and Decree made the obedience of Christ in his Combate of sufferings and in the formality of his death and sacrifice to be the full price of the redemption of all the elect Israel of God namely in their place and stead But saith Mr. Norton in page 143. No â—ice can dispence in case of the Antitype Reply 29. And why not Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth The Lord in mercy open his eyes and all our eyes to see better into the force of Gods voluntary Covenant for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant that doth make any thing to bee a full formal price in his own sight and on the contrary that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes can be made a ful price formally in his esteem without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant doth concur thereto Conclusions from my several Replyes to the said third Question 1 Hence it follows That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of
his death on the Cross namely he did not so forsake him as to suffer his humane nature to be put to death formally by the power of Satans torturing pains neither did he appoint his death to be made a sacrifice by his own immediate wrath but onely by Christs own Priestly power 2 Hence it follows That the death of Christ in the formality of it was accepted of God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Reconciliation by which his wrath was appeased and his favour procured to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners he was the Mediator of the New Testament through his death because he compleated the same as our Mediatorial Priest by the joynt concurrence of both his natures in personal union and in that respect he is denominated to be the Mediator of the New Testament through that transcendent kind of death Heb. 9. 14 15 16. A brief Reply to Mr. Nortons Charge of Heresie For out of his Heterodoxal Tenents he doth charge Heresie upon the Dialogue 3. For denying the Imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. Isa 53. 5 6. Reply THe Dialogue doth indeed deny the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in that new upstart formal legal manner by imputing sin and inflicting punishments after the manner of the proceedings of legal Courts of Justice as Mr. Norton holds But it doth not deny but approve of the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in the sense of the Ancient Divines and in the sense of Mr. Wotton for in this point of Imputation Mr. Wotton follows the sense of the Ancient Divines and the Dialogue doth approve and follow Mr. Wottons sense as I have shewed in Chap. 14. whose memory will be blessed where the truth prevails in this point namely That Christ bare our sins in his body on the Tree as the Dialogue hath rightly expounded 1 Pet. 2. 24. namely our punishments as our voluntary combating Surety against Satan according to Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. Luke 1. 74. Heb. 2. 14 15. 1 Joh. 3. 8. and not as our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton holds 2 As for the several Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his corrupt sense I have expounded them in their right sense with the concurrence of several Orthodox Writers Therefore you may see that he hath wrested the sense of the blessed Scriptures to prove his corrupt Tenent therefore his charge of Heresie is but a paper shot and a deep Charge of Error may justly be retorted And whereas hee hath published another book called The Orthodox Evangelist wherein he hath asserted the same Tenents upon the same grounds that he hath done in his Answer to the Dialogue This Reply which I have made in this Book will serve to prove that the said high Title is an erroneous and misleading Title and therefore it will advise the Reader to search better into the truth His second Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our Surety contrary to Gal. 4. 4 5. Mat. 5 17. 18. Heb. 10. 7. compared with Psal 40. 7. 8. and Rom. 3. 31. Reply I have Re-vindicated all these Scriptures from his unsound sense and expounded them in a right sense with the concurrence and approbation of the Orthodox in Chap. 3. and elswhere and therefore this charge of Heresied oth also vanish as a mist before the Sun His third Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto Justification contrary to Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. 19. and Phi. 3. 9. Reply I have also fully Re-vindicated these Scriptures from his unsound sense and given the Reader the true sense and so this charge of Heresie may more justly be recorted to the gives thereof For the Curse that is causless shall not come on the innocent Prov. 26. 2. But it will return to the giver thereof according to Psal 109. 17 31. 2 By the Table of chief Heads and by the Table of Scriptures annexed the Reader may please to search out the several pagen where the said several Scriptures are Re-vindicated from Mr. Nortons false glosses and there he shall find the genuine sense of them clearly discovered 3 Hence the five Divines that subscribed the Letter at the end of Mr. Nortons Book may see their great unadvisedness in joyning with Mr. Nortons to condemn the precious truth of the blessed Scriptures for Heresie and to approve of his perverted sense 4 I will now conclude with a reference to Lev. 4. 13 14. where a Church a Synod and a Court of Elders and Magistrates may see that they are somtimes subject to Error in the things of God and therefore they as well as persons of a lower capacity had need to watch and pray and to study daily and earnestly that God would guide their judgements unto the sound understanding and righteous preserving of the truth of his blessed Scriptures Amen The Wise will understand Dan. 12. 10. Austin Cont. Faust saith I pass not for the censures of such as dare to reprehend what they do not Comprehend FINIS Errata Reader Take notice that the first Figures stands for the Page and the second for the Line Page 23 line 23 blot out Now it remains to be expounded 40. 11 r. granted 40 16 r. sinning 50 10 r. by the Ordinances 95 25 r. affect 113 14 r. Naboth 118 10 r. Wotton 130 28 blot out He. 145 10 for 25 r. 103. 148 10 r. this 161 18 r. obrogate ibid. 22 r. that he shall not have ib. 25 r. Wotton 164 10 r. this 175 17 r. to act according to Physical causes in his moral obedience and namral actions as the Dialogue doth reason in p. 111. l. 31 and as it is opened in c. 17. Rep 11 in c. 3. 176 26. for Psal r. page 178 â—3 r. Is 53. 5 10. 186 8 r c 6. 192 8 r. 152 153 c. 193 19 blot out made 196 38 r. Goat Bucks 206 ult r. patienco and obedience 21 11 r. saith he 223 16 r. Wotton 232 from this page for 9 pages together is false pâ—ged make all these 9 pages 233. then the pages following are right 234 16 r p. 119. 238 32 r. statute 141 29 r. disposition and Rutherâ—urd on the Covenant doth at large concur with Mr. Ball. 243 4 r. chiefly 248 13 blot out but r. and yet not be one person 252 13 r. this phrase of the Septuagint the Apostle c. 252 15 after fully purged add compare herewith also Heb. 9 22 23. 258 23 r. Christs body 259. 35 blot out it is in the same verses r. the word Attonement is also explained by c. ' 263 38. r. both of his sufferings and of his death and sacrifice 266 2 r. his Argument 273. 28. blot out And r. The only reason 275. 11 r. was to cover and hide 275 28 r. themselves to Baal peor 282 19 r. groundless phantasies 295 15. for disease r. curse of evil 299 31 r. distaste 307 13 r. alone 309 9 r. this last Priestly act of his death 311 17 r propounded 323 26 r. Ekthambe sthai and so in p. 324 327 313 1 r. to the last gasp seeing he had got a confirmation against his sorrowâ— by his prayers in the Garden 326 25 r. but Christs perfections could not be disturbed with that disorderly hasty fear as they were in 2 King 7. 15. 335 25 add thus 339 21 r. Consecrator 344. 31 r. Joh. 10. 11. 345 12 r. usage 362 5 r. propounded 363 14 r. patients 368 17 blot out which 371 in the Marginal note r. Azab hath not two 373 39 r. Exod. 23 5. 385 39 r. tryed 386 26 r. against me 395 6 r. because he hath not hid 415 2 blot out to 427 10. r. derided by ib. 37 r. therefore 428 28 r. else 430 29 r. thing 432 34 r. sanctification of merit but not that of the Spirit Other faults there be which the Reader may mend
sense of Hell may bee thus considered Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades except in one place and there it is translated The metaphorical sense of Sheol Haides Thanatos death the word in both languages is of large signification and it may be ranked into these senses First It signifies sorrows and afflictions Secondly Death to the person Thirdly The Grave to the body Fourthly The world of souls to the souls departed namely to the godly soul Paradise and to the wicked Gehenna for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dâ—e whether they bee faithful and go to heaven or unfaithful and go to hell but Hades is first used for the hell of the damned in Luke 16. 2. Secondly For the penal hell of the godly in suffering persecutions and afflictions in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them 3 It is used for soul-sorrows when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time as I have noted in the first Distinction one may be in the Hell of conscience saith Mr. Wilson in his mystical cases p. 188. who shall never come into the hell of the damned But saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ dying page 35. 39. The hel in the soul of Gods children and the hell of the Reprobate differ in Essence and Nature 4 Bucer makes Christs bodily death to be penal Hell his Bucer in Mat. 27 53. words translated by Carliste speak thus The ancient Fathers make no mention of Limbus or Purgatory Let us saith he let this passe as the inventions of men and let us rather give thanks to the Lord who hath thrust his own Son into infernum that is to say saith he that willed him to dye truly that by his death we might be delivered Two things are observable in the words of Bucer 1 That he calls the bodily death of Christ Infernum or Hell 2 That he ascribes our deliverance from hell to the true bodily death of Christ 5 I grant that Christ suffered the sorrows of Sheol and Hades in a Metaphorical sense but in no sense did he suffer the sorrows of Gehenna and that is the word that is properly meant of Hell torments so that by Mr. Norton Christ must suffer the Essential torments of Gehenna in a penal Gehenna in this world Of which see Mar. 9. 43. 45. 6. Mr. Norton by his distinction of a local and penal Hell See Marbicks Com pl. p 22. doth much favour the opinion of the Albanenses whose fourth Heresie was this That in Hell there are no other pains than bee in this world and Mr. Norton holds that there are no other essential pains thanwhat Christs suffered in this world The opinions are very neer a kin though in other matters I esteemMr Norton far afore them SECT 3. 3. MR. Norton labours to confirm his said distinction of a local and penal Hell by this Scripture Thou wilt not leave Psal 16 10. Act. 2. 27. It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret Hell in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell torments and then only the the Grave my soul in Hell this is cited in Psal 16. 10. and in Act. 2. 27. The soul saith he in page 39. is understood by judicious and learned Authors properly Hell Metaphorically for such pains as are equivalent to the pains of Hell it self But yet Mr. Norton doth fully contradict and confute both himself and his learned and judicious Authors for in page 110. he saith That the word Hades in the Creed is doubtlesse to bee interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture But saith he in Acts 2. 27. It is taken for the Grave Here he affirms it is taken for the Grave and yet in the place fore-cited he saith It is taken for the pains of Hell it self by the judgement of learned and judicious Authours I confesse I cannot but wonder that hee should make hell in one and the same text to signifie such different things it is a manifest testimony of the uncertainty of his judgement 2 If Haides in Greek and Sheol in Hebrew and Hell in English signifie no more but the Grave in the said Scriptures then I wonder how Mr. Norton can interpret the word Soul properly of the immortal Soul of Christ as he doth with the approbation of learned and judicious Authors Doth the same Scripture in the same words affirm that Christs immortal Soul did one while suffer the pains of hell in this life and another while lye buried with his body in the Grave Is not this to make the holy Scripture to be no better than a leaden Rule to bee bowed this way that way after the fantasies of men at their pleasures He tells mee in page 258. That the Scripture lyeth not in the sound of words but in the sense but in this hee doth halt of his own sore and therefore I retort his own words to himself that most pestilent Doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture c. 3 Saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul in Psal 16. 10. and Act. 2 27. is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly If Mr. Norton do approve the judgement of those learned and judicious Authors to the Reader why then doth he in page 110. take Hell for the Grave was his soul properly taken buried in his Grave Secondly why doth Mr. Norton blind the Reader by saying that learned and judicious Authors do take the word Soul properly seeing hee cannot be ignorant that other learned and judicious Authors take the Soul there for the vital soul only that liveth and dyeth with the body that soul might be dislocated in his body when he dyed and so it might be buried with his body in the grave Mr. Ains on the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. in his conclusion saith thus Compare it namely this word Soul with the like in other places as Psal 30. 4. Psal 116. 8. and Psal 89. 49. and 88. 4. and 94. 17. all which places are clearly meant of the vital soul and then hee makes application of this to Christ Christ saith he gave his soul for the Ransome of the world and powred it out to death Isa 53. 12. Mat. 20. 28. Ioh. 10. 11 15 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus these words Thou wilt not leave my soul in bell teach us Christs Resurrection as if he should say Thou will not leave me to the power of Death or Grave to be consumed Mark this close of Mr. Ainsworths hee interprets Hell to bee Death or the Grave 2 Mr. Broughton in his two Works defensive expounds Psal 16. 10. thus Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death In these words he expounds Christs soul to be his vital soul and Sheol Hell to be Death
other words p. 48 and he gives three instances To which I answer that they are not contrary though different in respect of the metaphorical sense and so the word Tzedec Righteousness is often put for a counterfeit righteousness which in proper speaking is untighteousness in Gods sight And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness Secondly Saith Mr. Norton Azab signifies to Fortifie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortifie is contrary to leaving and forsaking in case it can have no other sense in the place cited But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation which is according to the propriety of the Hebrew word Azab of leaving off to fortifie when they came to the broad wall because that was done in former times and was still standing undemolished as the rest was and the like sense they give of Neh. 4. 2. and the like sense must be given of Azab in Isa 49. 25. and therefore as yet there is no contrary signification of the word Azab as Mr. Norton doth make his Reader beleeve to bewilder his understanding in the manner of Gods leaving or forsaking Christ on the Cross But for the better finding out the truth I will first give some instances of the various sense of Azab and then I will examine what sense it hath in Psa 22. 1. 1 It is used in a metaphorical sense for a Mart or Fair Ezek. 27. 12 14 16 19 22. And it is also used for Wares of Merchandize in Ez. 27. 27 33. And the reason is plain because in Fairs and Markets there is an usual and continual leaving of one thing for another by way of contract as of mony for Wares and of Wares for mony of one sort of Ware for another So in like sort the Hebrew word Gnereb which in propriety doth signifie the connexion or con-joyning of two or more things together is used by Ezekiel by a Metonymia for Fairs or Markets and for Wares of Merchandize Ezek. 27. 13 17 c. Because of the connexion and conjoyning of sundry sorts of Wares to sell and because of the sundry conjunctions between men by contracts about Wares as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time 2 As Azab is put for leaving one thing for another in Markets so it is put for any other kind of leaving either by way of agreement or disagreement As for example when it is agreed that two shall strive for the mastery there all friends must stand aside and leave their friend alone to try the mastery as David was left of his friends when he alone undertook to try masteries with Goliah 3 Leaving is put for leaving of a mans own business to help another in his necessity as in Ezek. 23. 5. afore expounded 4 Leaving is put for forsaking or leaving another that is helpless in their necessity Sometimes it is to leave in anger as 2 Chron. 24. 25. And sometimes not in anger but by necessity 1 Sam. 30. 13. And sometimes willingly and so Mary left Martha to serve whiles she attended to Christs Doctrine and in that respect Martha complained to Christ saying Dost thou not care that my Sister hath left me alone to serve Luk. 10. 40. There Sabactani is in the Syriack just as it is in Psa 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. 5 Leaving in Hebrew is often used in mercy favor and kindness as in Ruth 2. 16. Jer. 49. 11. and so it is used in the Chalde in Dan. 4. 15 26. the word Leave there is in favor as ver 26 sheweth 6 Azab is applied to Gods leaving or forsaking of notorious finners in anger 2 Chron. 24. 18 20 24. Deut. 31. 17. 32. 36. 1 King 14. 10 21. 21. 2 King 14. 26. Yea sometimes Gods hatred is joyned to his leaving or forsaking as in Isa 60. 15. But remember this that God never forsakes any in wrath but such as do first forsake him by provoking sins 7 Azab is used for leaving of a mans first love to the Truth in Prov. 3. 3. Let not Mercy and Truth leave thee or forsake thee 8 God left Hezekiah onely to try his heart 2 Chron. 32. 31. 9 Azab is put for a leaving of those that a man loves well to cleave to that which a man loves better as to leave a Father for a Wife Gen. 2. 24. Ruth 1. 16. 10 A man leaves a thing because he is forced Gen. 39. 12 13 15 18. 11 A man often leaves that he loves through haste Josh 8. 17. 1 Sam. 30. 13. 12 Hee leaves a thing through fear 1 King 31. 7. 1 Chron. 10. 7. 13 Azab is to leave or cease or rest from complaining and so the Divine nature did often rest or cease or leave the Humane nature to his own natural principles in his sufferings and combatings with Satan and his Instruments These several senses of Azab and many such like do shew the various sense of the word leaving 14 And this is worth the noting That though Azab doth often signifie such a leaving as is a forsaking yet it doth not alwaies signifie forsaking as it doth leaving For Azab is applied to sundry kinds of leaving which cannot with any fitness be called a forsaking as in Gen. 39. 6. Potiphar left all he had in trust in Josephs hand So in Gen. 50. 8. Their little ones and their flocks and their heards they left in the land of Goshen And so in Exod. 9. 21. 2 Sam. 15. 16. and so in Ruth 2. 16 Boaz commanded his Reapers to let fall some of their handfuls and leave them in kindness on purpose for Ruth to glean them So Job 39. 14. The Ostritch leaveth her eggs in the warm dust to hatch her young ones So in Jer. 49. 11. Mal. 4. 1. 2 Chron. 28. 14. Ezra 6. 7. And many other places might be cited to prove that Azab cannot so fitly be translated to forsake as to leave I grant notwithstanding that the word leave is so large that many times it doth most fitly agree to the word forsake in the largest use of it But ere long I shall shew the particular sense of the word left or forsaken Psa 22. 1. But saith Mr. Norton in the page aforesaid The meaning of the word leave or forsake was kept sound with Mr. Ainsworth but with you is not Reply 4. I grant that Mr. Ainsworth did hold that God forsook or left Christs soul in wrath but yet for all that he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth namely that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell I received some Letters from him not many years before his death about the point of Christs sufferings And his Letters tell me that he held this as a principle that Christ suffered no other afflictions for kind but what the Elect do suffer in this life though in a far greater measure
now seeing he held this as a Principle he could not hold that Christ suffered Gods penal and vindictive wrath except he had also held that the Elect do suffer Gods penal and vindicative wrath in this life But seeing all the punishments of the godly are called but chastisements even so the greatest of Christs sufferings on the cross are also comprised under Isa 53. 5. All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisements in Isa 53. 58. the word chastisement Isa 53. 5. But yet I grant also that Mr. Ainsworth held that as the Elect do often suffer Gods wrath so did Christ and in this last point I differed from him for though I hold that Gods chastisements on his own people are from his fatherly wrath yet I also beleeve that Christs chastisements were not from Gods wrath for correction to amendment as ours are But from the conditions of the voluntary Burges saith well that Jobs afflictions were to him as a storm or tempest is to a skilful Pilot or what a valiant Adversary is to a stout Champion on justif p. 28. and such was the nature of all Christs chastisements Covenant Christ was to suffer chastisements from the rage of Satan for the tryal of the perfection of his patience and obedience and because he continued constant in his obedience through all his sufferings from Satans rage therefore his sufferings have the condition of merit Besides this in all Mr. Ainsworths five Books on Moses and the Psalms which were published before this intercourse of Letters I find nothing in any of them that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell And therefore Mr. Ainsworth was not sound in the sense of these words Why hast thou forsaken me according to Mr. Nortons Tenent though he was far more sound than Mr. Norton is 2 I can instance the like in several other eminent Divines that held satisfaction by suffering Gods wrath in some degree and yet were far from holding as Mr. Norton doth that Christ suffered the very essential Torments of Hell both of loss and sense as Mr. Weams in his portrature p. 208. saith thus Because some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the Torments of Hell the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person and to this purpose I could cite Ball on the Covenant p. 200. and others also 3 Our larger Annotations on Psa 22. 1. speak thus Christ as man did suffer partly in his body and partly in his soul but more in his soul than in his body more than can either be expressed by man or be imagined I do not see how any reasonable man can question that reads the story of his passion from his bloody swear unto the end and considers Christs own expressions recorded to us that we might know how much he hath suffered for us But saith the Annotation I will not say that there was a necessity that he should suffer so much just so much both in Body and Soul to make his sufferings available to our Redemption both of our bodies and of our souls This I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scriptures and bare humane Ratiocination in these things is meet folly and madness This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. Nortons Tenent for Mr. Norton holds no suffering to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to 〈◊〉 namely Christs suffering of the Essential punis 〈…〉 ments both of loss and sense both in body and 〈…〉 this Annotation I will not say there was a necessity 〈◊〉 he should suffer so much just so much both in body 〈…〉 make his sufferings available to our Redemption 〈◊〉 our bodies and soul This saith the Annotation I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scripture But Mr. Norton heaps up abundance of Scriptures to prove that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell both in Our larger Annotation on Psa 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination which is but meer folly and madness body and soul and therefore according to this Annotation they must needs be wrested from their right sense for this Annotation accounts all that can be said for it to be but bare humane ratiocination and calls it meer folly and madness But Mr. Norton on the contrary doth boldly damn this denial in this Annotation to be Heresie such an antypathy there is between his Tenent and this Annotation But the Lord hath his time when truth shall prevail against Mr. Nortons most dangerous Scripture-less Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by man instrumentally and by Gods anger as the efficient cause Reply 5. Mr. Norton affirms that Gods anger was the efficient cause of all the griefs that Christ suffered from his Cradle to his Cross But the Dialogue goes in another strain the Dialogue makes all Christs sufferings to be founded efficiently in the eternal Council and in the voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity for mans Redemption and therefore he was to perform all as a voluntary Covenanters and was not to be over-ruled by Gods judiciall imputation of our sins to him and by his supreme compulsory power in pressing him under the sence of his immediate wrath namely that Christ should take on him the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature should enter the Lists and Combate with Satan as I have often expounded Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. for it pleased God to put an utter enmity between the Devill and the seed of the woman even from the foundation of the world Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries and Isay fore-told that Christ should by his obedience to the death get the victory and divide the spoil Isa 53. 12. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Anger in Scripture is sometimes taken for the hatred of God unto a person sometimes for the execution of vindicative Justice in this latter sense God was angry with Christ not in the former Reply 6. In Chapter 5. I have shewed from Dr. Ames that the essential torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred And thence it follows That if Christ did suffer the essential torments of Hell then he suffered them from Gods hatred But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Christ doth complain in Psal 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sin Reply 7. I shall not need to make any other Reply to this than his own words in p. 42. To complain against God saith he is a sin and sheweth grudging But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Gods forsaking is either total and final so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the Promise so God forsook Christ and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place Reply 8. The punishment of loss is variously and
lay it down and power to take it up again This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 17 18. Joh. 10. 17 18. And hence I reason thus If Christ received this Commandement from his Father then doubtless his Father had covenanted that he should be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he would accept it as the full price of mans Redemption 3 I have often shewed that Christs humane nature was so perfect that it was priviledged from our natural death and sufferings and that his death and sufferings was undertaken only by his voluntary Covenant and that Covenant made it upon performance according to the Articles to be the full price of mans Redemption These two wayes the blessed Scriptures do often speak of the death of Christ First Of his passive death And secondly Of his active death But because his passive death from his malignant Combater Satan was accompanied with very many ignominous punishments and reproachful Tortures which he was permitted to use as thinking thereby to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience that so he might not make his soul a sacrifice Therefore much Scripture is taken up to record the long story of his passive death and in that long and sharp trial his perfect patience and obedience through all his ignominious sufferings is much to be admired especially from the time that he was apprehended to the end of the time of his crucifying which was twelve full hours and hee aboad under the pains of a violent death for three hours together and all the actions that fell in about his sufferings in all this time were many and therefore the story thereof must needs bee long and his sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings doth not only prove the truth of his humane nature but the perfection of his patience and obedience and in that respect his sufferings were ordained to be for the perfection of his Priestly Consecration to his sacrifice Heb. 2. 10. And therefore as soon as he had finished his Priestly Consecration by suffering the utmost of Satans temptations Heb. 2. 10. Christs Priestly Consecration Christs Sacrifice and trials he presently after without delay made his vital soul a sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures as the formality of all satisfaction for mans Redemption But because this short singular act of his sacrifice was done as it were but in a moment of time and because it was done in the middest of his sensible torments on the Cross therefore it comes to pass that this short singular act of his sacrifice is not so much marked as it ought to bee But most an end the long obvious story of his sufferings from his Combater Satan which indeed doth belong to his sacrifice as much as the consecration of the Priest doth to the Sacrifice is named instead of full satisfaction and so it may be justly called by the figure Synecdoche provided his sacrifice in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power be not neglected but a real distinction ought to be observed when the parts of Christs Priesthood are to be explained though this distinction is often sleighted and divided by Mr. Norton So then from the long passive action Christ may bee truly said to be killed and slain for he was crucified with the sores of death even as truly as it is said that Christ was the Son of Joseph for indeed he was the Son of Joseph in a true legal sense because he was born of Josephs wife after Manage and in that respect he was truly and properly in Laws esteem the Son of Joseph and accordingly he was every where esteemed and called the Son of Joseph yea his mother Mary that best knew the truth told her Son Jesus that his Father Joseph sought after him Luke 2. 48. yea and Jesus himself did also acknowledge Joseph to be his true Father according to Laws esteem and therefore he was subject to him as to his proper Father for nine and twenty years together namely until he was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office and then he had the business of another Father to do and the world in general some few excepted knew no other but that he was the true natural Son of Joseph and herefore no man did contradict that usual talk and speech and yet notwithstanding all this plain and downright speaking Christ was not the true natural Son of Joseph hee was legally but not formally the Son of Joseph So in like sort it may be as truly said That Christ was killed and slain by the sores of death on the Cross by the Jews because they did as much to kill him as they did to kill their own Prophets 1 Thes 1. 15. yea Christ himself foretold his Disciples that he should be killed by the Jews Mark 8. 31. Mark 12. 8. and all the Prophets said It should be so Gen. 3. 15. Psol 22. Isa 53. and the Evangelists said It was so Luke 24. 20. Act. 2. 23. and the Martyrs in Rev. 5. 9 12. said It was so and yet in verse 6. they say also that he stood there as though hee had been killed both speeches are true and both are truly affirmed For first He was truly killed and slain both by the Jews and by the Roman powers in Laws esteem and yet the Martyrs said It was but as though it were so legally they killed him but formally they did not kill him though they did what they could to kill him formally and they thought they had killed him formally because he died formally whiles he was under the sores of death but indeed they could not kill him formally because God had given power to Christ to lay down his life formally of himself and that no other created power should take away his life from him as I have formerly expounded Job 10. 17 18. Himself was ordained to be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice as soon as he had fulfilled al the tortures of the Cross from his Combater Satan but that act of separating his soul from his body was not so sensible to the beholders as his external tortures of death were and therefore they thought nothing less was the true cause of his death They could not by the power of their natural reason discern how God did interpose his power between the tortures of death and their ordinary killing effect neither could they discern the difference that was between his sinless nature and their own corrupt nature nor yet how he was God and man in personal union and therefore they could not know as they ought to have known how he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he must offer himself by his eternal Spirit that so he might be the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of Mediatorial death Heb. 9. 14 15. And yet