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
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
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
themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. faith You cannot shew me in all the Old or New Testament any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ where it is written If the Man Christ sin he shall eternally dye I tremble saith he at such expressions and hence I infer That then Christ could not be Adams Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant The true nature of Christs death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own Priestly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at 1. 23. As Christ assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours so his death in the formality of it was not to be like ours but of a far differing nature A deseription of Christs merit namely how he merited our Redemption p. 146 176 130 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons Man sins and the Man Christ dyes is but a Paralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 150 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the 〈…〉 or all Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 〈◊〉 doth not comprehend Christ within the composs of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet faith Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 91. he could not beleeve the incarnation of the Second person for then he should have understood of his own fall and then consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But faith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And faith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so faith Austln in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate him from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decrees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because he was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our re-demption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound hi 〈…〉 nd to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p. 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p. 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification
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
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
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
to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Law set apart he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself And hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant then not by his obedience to the moral Law 5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law then his desire That the Cup might passe from him in Matth. 26. 39. had been a sinful desire But saith Mr. Rutherford because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to dye therefore that desire was no sin as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law but it was commanded over and besides the moral Law as I cited him in the former Section 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art beyond others by which hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarnation to be moral obedience or else he would never say as hee If the Incarnation of Christ had been an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto â—e was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under â—he Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141 and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dau. 9. 24. 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely of the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sim See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10. 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin Heb 9 26. namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Iustifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8.
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
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
him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a sour stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 15. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should prevail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and alittle after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator becausâ— of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God
to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of ourguilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death iâ— not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their
Reply 2. If Mathew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That bee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers Toese words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repent the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in
sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numerice and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would fain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 3. 15. Rom 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation
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
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
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
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
The Meritorious Price OF MANS REDEMPTION OR Christs Satisfaction discussed and explained 1 By shewing how the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ did satisfie Gods Justice pacifie his Wrath and procure his Reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot 2 By vindicating the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ from that most dangerous Scripture-less Tenenâ— that is held forth by Mr. Norton of New England in his Book of Christs Sufferings affirming that he suffered the Essential Torments of Hell and the second death from Gods immediate vindicative wrath 3 By shewing that the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ in relation to his Office of Mediatorship is a distinct sort of obedience from his moral obedience in Chapter the third and elsewhere 4 By shewing that the Righteousness of God so called in Rom. 3. 21 22 26 in Rom. 10. 3 in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Phil. 3. 9. is to be understood of God the Fathers performance of his Covenant with Christ namely that upon Christs performance of his Covenant by combating with Satan and at last by making his death a sacrifice he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners and not impute their sins to them And therefore 1. This Righteousness of God must needs be the formal cause of a sinners justification And 2. It must needs be a distinct sort of Righteousness from the Righteousness of Christ contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent This is evidenced in Chap. 14. and elsewhere 5 By explaining Gods Declaration of the combate between the Devil and the seed of the woman in Gen. 3. 15. from whence as from the foundation-principle this present Reply doth explain all the after prophecies of Christs Sufferings 6 By clearing several other Scriptures of the greatest note in these Controversies from Mr. Nortons corrupt Expositions and by expounding them in their right sense Both according to the Context and according to sundry eminent Orthodox Writers By William Pynchon Esq late of New England London Printed by R. I. for Thom. Newberry and are to be sold at his Shop in Cornhil over against the Conduit near the Royal Exchange 1655. To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the sâ—ed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-saols for a sinful Male factor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this seed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be
reconciled to the Elect and receive them again into special favor as Sons by Adoption A learned Divine saith thus The fundamental grounds of Christianity do inforce us to grant That in the Divine nature though most indivisibly one there is an eminent Ideal pattern of such a distinction as we call between party and party a capacity to give and a capacity to receive a capacity to demand and a capacity to satisfie c. 5 From this eternal Decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son doth result the New Covenant with the Elect For it pleased them to agree That all the Articles of the New Covenant should be ratified and confirmed to the Elect by the death of Christ and from that confirmation by his death It is now stiled the New Testament Heb. 9. 15 16. 6 Presently after the Declaration of the said Enmity and Combate in Gen. 3. 15. namely in verse 19. It pleased God further to declare the Council of his will to fallen but now also converted Adam That he should return to the dust whence he was taken Gen. 3. 19. And this is also further to be noted That God denounced this judicial sentence of a bodily death on him as a just punishment for his original spiritual death in sin and this is also further evident by Rom. 5. 12. And secondly The Apostle doth also further tell us That when God appointed a bodily death to Adams sinful nature that he also did at the very same time appoint a judgement for each departed soul Heb. 9. 27. namely First That such as dyed in the faith of their Redemption by the seed of the woman should bee judged to everlasting life and so the sentence of their bodily death should at the last bee turned into a blessing to them But secondly That such as beleeved nor their Redemption by this seed of the woman the sentence of their bodily death should bring a greater judgement to them because it should be an inlet to their eternal death in hell Ioh. 3. 36. 7 Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That when God proclaimed this Combate and victory he did exemplifie the manner of the victory to Adam by the death of some Lamb which God commanded Adam to offer in Sacrifice as I have shewed it more at large in my Treatise of the Institution of the Sabbath and ever after God did exemplifie the same to the Fathers both before and after the Flood 1 Before the Flood it is said That Abel did offer a better sacrifice than Cain because he offered it in faith Gen. 4. Heb. 11. 4. 2 Immediately after the Flood Noah is said to offer sacrifice for a sweet savor of rest unto God Gen. 8. 21. because such Sacrifices were ordained to typifie Gods full rest and sweet content in the perfect obedience of Christ first in his Combate and at last in his Sacrifice as it is opened in Eph. 5. 2. 3 After this God is said to preach the Gospel unto Abraham Gal. 3. 8 16. and how else did he preach the Gospel but by declaring in what manner the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents Head plot and therefore when God renewed his Promise and Covenant of blessedness to Abraham by telling him that this Seed of the woman should come out of his loyns He gave this Testimony of Abraham That he did obey his voyce and keep his charge his Commandements his Statutes and his Laws Gen. 26. 5. And that he would teach his children and his houshold after him as all the godly Fathers did to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18. 19. namely to keep the way of true Religion or the way of Redemption by the Seed of the woman that was promised to come out of his loyns 4 After this it pleased the Lord to separate Israel to be his peculiar people in Covenant And then at Mount Sinai he gave them the ten Commandements as a Covenant of Grace as many learned Divines do of late rightly call it for the regulating of their faith and obedience in the course of their lives together with certain other voluntary ceremonial and typical Laws and with certain Judicial Laws many of which were also typical and these Laws in their outward bodily use were called the first Covenant of works in respect of their lawful and legal appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary but the same Laws in their mystical and spiritual use were given as a Covenant of grace and as the Law of faith though after a while the Jews under the New Testament did mistake Gods end in giving them for they did relye upon their outward obedience to them as Idolaters do for their eternal justification and salvation 5 Besides these typical ceremonial Laws It pleased God to ordain some other voluntary positive ceremonial Laws which were no way typical in relation to our redemption by Christ as the former were but were ordained only for the trial of some particular mans obedience in some one particular act and such was the command of God to Saul to destroy the Amalekites utterly without sparing any thing 1 Sam. 15. And such also was the command of God to David to hang up seven of Sauls sons to pacifie his wrath though some of them if not all of them might be innocent of Sauls sin 2 Sam. 21. And such also was the command of God to the young Prophet not to eat any bread in that place nor to return the same way that he came 1 King 13. 9. c. This insuing controversie hath relation often to some one or other of these Laws and Covenants as also to the Law of Suretiship for life in the case of capital crimes In all which Laws and Covenants your Lordship cannot but have a deep inspection and therefore I have the rather been bold to dedicate this insuing Controversie to your Honours judgement And now my humble Request to your Honour is 1 That where you find any thing that doth not accord to the truth in your judgement that you will bee pleased either to vouchsafe me your Animadversions or else to lay it aside in silence as you do other mens Tenents that you like not 2 That where you find any thing that doth accord to the truth which my soul loveth and longeth after that you will be pleased to vouchsafe it so much grace in your sight as to protect and defend it according to God whereof I nothing doubt as being verily perswaded that your Lordship doth account it your greatest honour to be every way serviceable to God and his truth as it is in Jesus And that you may be still guided in the wayes of truth and life until you obtain the end of your faith even the salvation of your soul It is the hearty prayer of Your Honours most humble servant WILLIAM PYNCHON TO THE Considerate and Judicious Reader IN this insuing Reply both to Mr. Nortons Foundation-principles and also to his several Answers to the
Christs Satisfaction not only from me but also from Mr. Norton but I hope my whole Book is a sufficient Reply and a sufficient vindication of the truth 4 There is one Scripture in my following Reply which I have cited to my sense out of Mr. Burges in Vindiciae legis namely Mat. 5. 17 18. which he doth now expound in a differing sense from what he had done in Vindiciae legis namely That Christ came to fulfil the Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation This Exposition he did not give in Vindiciae legis but yet I perceived that he held it to be a truth in it self but by his former exposition I could not conceive that hee ever intended to hold it from this Text and Context or else I had not cited him and now I would have left him out had I not been prevented by the Press for the Exposition that I have now given of that Text in page 113. I beleeve is the truth and it hath the approbation of other eminent orthodox Writers And as for his two Reasons given in page 357. to prove that these words of Christs must bee understood of his Suretiship fulfilling they prove it not but according to the Context they do most fiâ—ly agree to Christs Doctrinal fulfilling as I have expounded that Text. Thus much I thought fit to speak to the Reader 5 Whereas it hath pleased him to give the term of many Novelismes to my Book I reply That every one knows that when any one doth labour to vindicate the true sense of the blessed Scriptures from some long accustomed errors that such Expositors will be accounted to hold Novelismes by them that hold such received errors when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes for in Mark 1. 27. they said What new doctrine is this But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is To make a thorow search into what both sides say and then to judge between us such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans And so resteth Thine in the truth of the Gospel W. PYNCHON A Table of the chief Heads But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen for the better observation of some Points and because some of them are too much for the Margin there set onely the first sentence and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton holds but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive symbolical command about things indifferent in their own nature Page 3. Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws after the time of Adams fall is called the First Covenant of Works and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant as Ainsworth noteth in Psal 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver 12. and with Heb. 9. 19. Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites Paul cals the Law of Works for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by Gods Covenant to purifie their bodies and so to make them fit persons to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary Rom. 3. 27. and 9. 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense Paul doth also call The Law of Faith to the spiritual Jews because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust onely on Christ for Life and Salvation Gal. 3. 2 3. Rom. 2. 26 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws did by Gods Ordinance make them to belong unto two differing Covenants namely both to the Covenant of Works and to the Covenant of Grace contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent in p. 183 184. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature then Eveâ— desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating p. 7 Adam sonned not in soul until he had first sinned in body p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroniously but it was from a meer voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity as equal and reciprocal Covenanters p. 9 122 293 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9. The death of Christ saith Grotius was not determined by any Law that was given to man but by a special Covenant Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adams created nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature p. 10. Adams ignorance of that positive Law as of the event that was at the first given to the Angels which was to serve man though in the event many of them refused and thereby became Devils made him the more apt to be deceived by the Devils temptations p. 11 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adams disobedience to the moral Law but through his disobedience to a meer positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adams justification but it was ordained onely to be the condition of his created perfections and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place p. 14 No act of Adams obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life because no other act of his obedience but that alone was constituted by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practise of moral obedience therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections p. 21 * * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially as the Faculties do from the soul for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject
remission of sins and this exposition in the same page he doth also apply to our being sanctified by justification in 1 Cor. 6. 11. but this kind of justifying holiness by Gods Attonement and forgiveness which makes a sinner to abide for ever righteous just and holy in Gods sight Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie And in p. 228. he calls this Attonement and forgiveness A pestilent fiction and abomination O blindness and blasphemy extream in the typical sense and use of the legal word Sanctified purged cleansed purified made righteous and justified was the Jews a holy Nation by inherent righteousness or rather was it not because of their constant practise to make themselves holy according to the first Covenant by their typical holiness CHAP. XV. THe outward manner of Christs death in being crucified on a Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. by this phrase Thou shalt peirce him in the Foot-soals p. 263 Stoning to death and hanging up of the dead body on a Tree to be gazed on for a further infamy after his stoning to death was accounted to be the most accursed of all kinds of death because of the infamy that was contracted by hanging after he was stoned to death p. 268 * Add this Note to p. 268. When the Jews had killed the ten sons of Haman on the thirteenth day of Adar then Ester requested the King that their dead bodies might be hanged on a Gallows all the fourteenth day for their greater infamy reproach and curse in relation both to Hamans execrable plot and also to Gods ancient curse upon the Amalekites for they came of the stock of the Amalekites that God had eminently cursed Ester 9. 12 13 14. Exod. 17. 16. 1 Sam. 15. The time of the burial of the person hanged might be done after Sunset provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight p. 272 The latter Editions of King Jame ' s Translation on Deut. 21. 23 is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions p. 273 The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day in which he was stoned to death was because his curse of infamy by hanging so long on a Tree by exemplary Justice had appeased Gods anger and so consequently because it had now removed the curse that else would have fallen on the land p. 275 The whole land might be defiled by the Judges negligence in suffering notorious sinners to go unpunished p. 277 The whole land was never defiled by any one Ceremonial sin p. 279 The rule of Gods relative Justice is his secret Will which is sometimes contrary to his revealed Will p. 281 37 100 183 The second death is defined by the Hebrew Doctors from whom that term is borrowed to be a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God p. 286 All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world that is to say both our spiritual death in original sin and our bodily death are altogether called and accounted both by ancient and later Divines the first death in relation to the term second death because that is only suffered in the world to come p. 287 Mr. Norton doth sometimes hold satisfaction to be made by Christs suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments in kind but at other times he doth hold an alteration to equivalency p. 291 72 107 113 CHAP. XVI CHrist did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not made subject to death by that curse in Gen. 3. 19. as the nature of all other men is p. 293 Christ did first effect his Combate with Satan in his human nature and then he did effect his sacrifice by his Priestly power in bo 〈…〉 his natures and all this according to his Covenant and therefore h 〈…〉 was not made subject to death by Gods curse as ours is p. 293 297 308 and p. 9 The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of shame fear and pain than other men can be p. 294 Christ feared his ignominious death after the rule of fear and not after the example of this or that man p. 295 Christs doath was not a natural but a supernatural death p. 296 333 * Add this Note to p. 297 at line 1. and also to p. 9. and p. 293. The death of Christ was effected according to the Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son * Add this Marginal Note to p. 298. Christ did not pray to escape death but only that his humane nature might bee confirmed against his natural fear of death and so saith Trap Heb. 5. 7. hee was heard in that hee feared that is saith he he was delivered from his fear for no sooner had he prayed but he met his enemies and said Whom seek yâ—e I am he p. 298. Christ did voluntarily take â—â—r passions to him as they were a punishment inflicted on mankind for Adams sin p. 300 Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ p. 300 152 If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to dye that they have from otherwhere and not from the nature of death p. 301 When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason then no man can express what conflict there is between their nature and death the destroyer thereof which conflict was not in Christ p. 302. Mr. Norton doth in p. 153. most dangerously aâ—firm That Christ suffered a twofold death namely not only a bodily death but also that God inflicted a spiritual death upon his immortal soul which he doth also affirm to be the second death p. 307 315 The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity p. 308 9 122 130 All the sufferings of Christ were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice p. 309 The Sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of kis death which himself effected by his own Priestly power namely by the actual power and joynt concurrence of both his natures p. 309 315 145 God did all the external sufferings of Christ by giving license to Satan and his instruments to do them and God did all Christs internal soul-sufferings by appointing Christ to assume our true humane nature and affections and to use them at his own will and pleasure more or less as objects did present p. 311 178 Ch. 17 There is a sympathy between soul and body in sufferings p. 313 The sufferings of Christs soul in Matth. 26. 38. and in Isaiah 53. 10. must be understood chiefly of Christs vital soul and not of his immortal soul p. 314 Satisfaction was made by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death as Mr. Norton doth
yet it doth not thence follow that he was his own Executioner or Self murderer as Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly thence infer p. 405 No full satisfaction could be made by any thing that Christ suffered before his bodily death was compleated because therein onely lay the formality of his sacrifice without which no full satisfaction could be made p. 415. 309. 79 145 315 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth make Christ to die formally under the sense of the wrath of God for full satisfaction but at other times he doth cross that and makes satisfaction to be fully compleated before hee suffered his natural death So uncertain hee is in his foundation-Principles touching Christs satisfaction p 416 There was a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and the manner of Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect p. 417 * Add this Note to p. 417. Mr. Weams on the Judicial Laws p. 78. doth observe that though Peter said to Christ in Ioh. 13. 37. Lord I will lay down my life for thy sake yet Christ that knew his natural unwillingness better than himself told him afterwards that another shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not so that in the conclusion when Peter came indeed to dye for Christ he was partly willing and partly unwilling Ioh. 21. â—8 which kind of unwillingness was not in Christ at his death because he had by his prayers in the Garden obetained a confirmation against his naturall fear of death when hee came to dye on the cross Therefore Mr. Norton doth deale very unadvisedly to compare the manner of Peters laying downe his life with the manner of Christs laying downe his life for the Elect * Add this Note also to p. 417. The power which Christ said he had to lay down his life must not be understood of a permissive power to let Satan take it away formally nor yet of his absolute power as he was God but of his derivative power in relation to his Office of Mediatorship as I noted it in pag. 46. and in p. 420. from Mr. Ball for his Fathers commandement or commission gave him a speciall power of lawfull authority to lay down his life and therefore in vers 18. he saith this commandement or this authority have I as Mediator received of my Father Christs Priestly consecration by his sufferings and his Sacrifice by the formality of his death must not be confounded but distinguished when the parts of his Priestly Office are explained p. 427 No other act of a Priest doth make a Sacrifice formally but such an act as God hath appointed for the taking away of the life of the sacrifice formally p. 429 408 416 309 315 345 The word Sanctifie or make Holy in the Law is frequently ascribed to Gods Attonement and Forgiveness procured by Sacrifice And therefore all those sinners that are made holy by that means are Justified and Righteous persons in Gods sight p 431 These three legall Phrases Pardon of Sin Gods Attonement and a Sinners Righteousness are the same thing quite contrary to Mr. Nortons long Discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. See p. 432 What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to Reconcile us to himself but by the death of Christs flesh and not by the spiritual death of his immortall Soul as Mr. Norton holds p. 434 The death of Christ as is was a sacrifice of Reconciliation was by Gods voluntary Covenant the full price of mans Redemption p. 436 A Table of some Scriptures that are Expounded or Illustrated Genesis Ch. Vers Page 2 7 4 2 9 4 154. 2 17 23 59 63 112 130 144 149 152. 3 15 82 89 91 96 124 135 142 167 171 176 178 263 269 297 308 310 324 332 341 344 348 400 418. 3 19 30 147 334 401 419. 20 3 158 32 20 137 191 251 252 257. Exodus 22 31 235 432. 23 5 371 24 7 8 119 29 36 37 190 432 30 10 251 30 12 135 255 436 30 26 256 436 32 10 335 32 27 29 92 32 32 181 Leviticus 1 4 133 4 20 233 6 26 213 6 30 233 7 15 272 10 17 194 11 44 432 15 31 50 148 234 16 30 433 17 4 87 17 11 315 318 320 18 5 17 20 15 216. To this Text see our larger Annotation on the word cursed in Gen. 3. 14. Numbers 5 8 251 14 19 233 19 11 15 280 282 25 4 268 275 35 25 319 Deuteronomy 6 24 25 239 9 14 335 21 8 233 257 21 23 262 27 26 119 151 29 12 119 33 19 233 252 Joshua 7 12 276 8 29 272 2 Samuel 21 1 280 21 9 276 22 5 327 1 Kings 21 3 113 131 256 2 Kings 20 1 157 2 Chron. 30 19 20 158 Job 1 21 179 348 2 7 ibid. 19 21 ibid. 36 32 189 42 8 258 Psalms 16 10 109 18 5 321 327 22 1 59 370 25 11 333 25 18 168 31 5 436 32 1 168 258 260 32 5 85 40 6 213 40 8 44 187 40 16 270 49 7 8 9 94 135 51 14 233 51 19 233 252 65 4 137 69 7 9 269 69 20 343 69 27 349 78 38 160 94 15 138 118 19 49 Proverbs 7 9 272 28 13 197 Isay 53 4 162 Â 5 166 178 181 266 349 375 Â 6 167 186 193 Â 7 181 184 Â 8 351 Â 9 351 Â 10 96 124 178 211 222 223 314 348. Â 12 188 220 337 344 378 399. Jeremy 30 21 187 33 8 50 Ezekiel 18 4 20 25 94 149 217 27 12 13 14-373 Â Daniel 6 14 224 6 14 340 6 21 23 429 8 14 49 235 260 9 7 16 233 9 24 27 48 139 196 223 233 233 241 250 260 9 26 225 352 Jonah 3 4 158 Zachery 13 1 190 13 7 347 Matthew 4 1 346 5 17 18 113 16 21 142 19 28 29 20 22 33 305 26 28 260 Â 31 346 Â 38 173 269 270 298 314 321 327. Â 39 9 46 305 Â 46 335 339 Â 47 347 Â 53 54 184 298 384 27 39 270 Â 45 179 Â 46 59 370 Mark 10 39 305 307 14 33 223 338 14 24 35 290 15 27 28 220 352 Luke 9 28 107 9 31 121 10 40 374 12 50 183 22 28 170 Â 44 100 177 331 334 336 338. Â 53 184 418 23 34 45 23 46 436 414 24 25 26 44-143 Â 24 46 95 John 10 11 181 344 10 15 181 314 10 17 18 46 298 314 369 409 418 426 11 33 337 417 12 27 337 404 14 30 31 184 346 352 16 32 61 18 4 6 184 18 11 179 298 19 11 179 351 ib. 28 75 328 ib. 30 75 90 ib. 33 415 Acts. 2 23 179 312 351 ib. 27 109 3 17 18 142 4 28 179 13 27 28 143 15 9 259 in the Manusc Note Romans 1 32 239 2 13 18 ib. 26 241 260 3 21 223 237 ib.
by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. placâ— original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adam means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a siâ—gle person Wille in Rom. 5. Q 19. that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he Thâ— othâ—â— sins of Adam were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father but the soul that sinneth shall dye And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sins propagated to posterity but only the first between which and his other sins there was this difference That by the first the goodnesse of mans nature was lost And by the other the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away 1 Hence it follows that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person as it was against mans nature in general for it was against the Covenant that God made with him touching mans nature in general he being the head of mans nature therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams sinning and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation so then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inslicted on Adams nature for his sinfull act against the first Covenant by eating of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin which is now become nature to us because the Covenant being broken the punishment must fall on ouâ— nature as soon as we have any being in nature but bodily death was not then formally executed neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb as death in sin is but after some distance of time neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement and therefore no other death was threatned and formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams eating but a spiritual death in sin only Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement Such as are alive saith he at the day of Judgement shall not formally dye by the separation of their soul from their body So then it follows by good consequence that neither a bodily death nor eternal death in hell was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams sinning but a spiritual death in sin onely And Dr. Willet saith That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer and not a potential only not that Adams soul saith Mr. Perkins was now utterly abolished but because it was as though it were not and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse and fellowship with God and indeed saith he This is the Death In the right way of dying well p. 490. of all deaths when the creature hath subsisting and being and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God The second Circumstance that proves this death threatned to be meant only of death in sin is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised to the death here threatned Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant was the confirmation and the continuance of his created natural perfections The life promised to Adam and so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his câ—eated perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever in case he did first eat of the Tree of life once eating should have merited the blessing as once eating did merit the curse and this was signified by the name that was given to that Tree it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant And saith Christopher Carlisle where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the duall number it signifieth immortality as genetes Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought immortality and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Crotius Camero Bre. in Eccl. the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise that age should not consume and end his life Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it
pleased God also in a short time after to Relax the rigor and outrage of this spiritual death to all mankind in general in this life All the glory of Gods câ—eatiâ—n had been confounded at the time of Adams fall if Christ had not been fore-or ainâ—d to be reâ—dy at hand to take on him the Government of all And secondly to alter it much more to the Elect for God had ordained that his Son Jesus Christ should be the Heir of all things as soon as ever Adam fell and that he should at the instant of Adams fall take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation now in rebellion and confusion by Adams fall and that he should uphold all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3. and in a special manner should rule over mans corruption and Sathans malice or else if Christ had not been provided in Gods eternal Counsel and Providence in a readinesse to undertake the Government of all this in this point of time no man can imagine what a hell would have been here on earth through mans spiritual death in sin and Sathans malice if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government And secondly It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam and all his elect posterity from this desperate Head-plot of Sathan and from this miserable death of sin thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure or else if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence there had been no room left for the manifestation of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed for till the time of Gods gracious manifestation Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of Gods vindicative threatning but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him there-from for God said thus by way of threatning to the devil The Seed of that Woman whom thou hast deceived shall break thy Head-plot by his death and sacrifice and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to peirce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his patience nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice and by this means shall thy cunning Head-plot be broken in peeces and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken Now to bring this work of Redemption to passe a double change must be wrought in fallen man by the Mediation of this Promised Seed 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration 2 A change of our present state from being the children of wrath by nature to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption 1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration 1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good which is done but in part whiles we live in this world through the Word and Spirit For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration as I said is done but in part for as long as we live in this world this body of sin doth still in part remain and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here 2 The full degree of our Regeneration is not till the day of the general Resurrection and then all those that have been in part regenerated here shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here to fit them for that full Regeneration for without such a change of our corrupt nature by death flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption 1 Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect saith Christopher Carlisle the Resurrection is called by Christ A Regeneration a new Birth a Renovation a In his Treatise of Christs descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead a Restitution from above Matth. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate and in part sanctified here must suffer a bodily death that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body as well as in soul and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality 1 Cor. 15. 53. Ph. 3. 21. Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in ordaining a bodily death for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after namely in vers 19. which is but four verses after the promise tell beleeving Adam as he was the head of mans corrupt nature in general Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return And thus from the order of time when this threatning was denounced It follows 1 That a bodily death was not denounced untill after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break thâ— Devils Head-plot by purchasing a new Nature and a new Paradise for Adam and as many else of his posterity as did beleeve in the Promised Seed but this threatning of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and dye in the unbeleef of the Promised Seed for when God did first appoint a bodily death he did then also appoint a day of Judgement as Heb. 9. 27. doth expound the threatning in Gen. 3. 19. 2 This is also worthy of all due consideration That this bodily death was not threatned to be formally executed in the day of Adams sinful eating as death in sin was 3 Neither was a bodily death threatned to be formally executed on any certain day afterwards 4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death after this time but upon the committing of such and such sins he did still from time to time threaten a bodily death But after the first threatning of a spiritual death in sin God did never threaten that death any more he did but once threaten that death and but once execute it 5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to beleeving Adam he adjudged him and all his beleeving posterity no further then their bodies to the earth whence Christ should one day raise them and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption but he adjudged his unbeleeving seed not only to a bodily but also to an eternal death in hell 6 From this appointment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. and not
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
may live c. Reply In that Christ did dye for the Elect it did not come to passe from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatning But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdome and free grace in the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity to will it and to accept of his death and sacrifice as the price of their Redemption Heb. 10. 5. 7. Eph. 1. 7 8. And Mr. Norton himself in his answer to his first Query doth acknowledge that vindicative justice hath no necessary connexion with the being of God but is an act of Gods good pleasure Secondly He takes it often for grace which is as often denied that Christ was Adams Surety in the same obligation to the first Covenant Thirdly His conclusion that God could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely that man sinned man must dye in the man Christ Jesus I have shewed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a meer Prologisme namely a deceitful Sylogisme which seemeth true when it is not CHAP. III. The Examination of Mr. Nortons third Query in Page 5. which is this Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Ans In three things 1 In the dignity of his person obeying 2 In the quality or kind of his obedience 3 In the acceptation of this obedience SECT 1. Reply 1 THere is no need to say any thing to the first branch of his Answer But to the second branch touching the qulity or kind of his obedience there is need of examination for Mr. Norton makes all the obedience of Christ to be legal obedience in opposition to the Dialogue that doth distinguish between his Legal and Mediatorial obedience In page 6. Mr. Norton saith His obedience was legal obedience the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto But I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant did not stand in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and from Mr. Rutherfurd that the Command of God for Christ to dye was not from the moral Law but from a positive Law only Reply 2. Mr. Norton doth also contradict himself touching the quality or kind of Christs obedience For first he saith It The kind of Christs obedience as Mediator was to a peculiar positive law But Mr. Norton doth 1 affirm that the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal and 2 he doth contradict that and saith it was more also was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the firsT Covenant stood bound unto But secondly he contradictâ— this for in page 201. he saith That the will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of Works more This last word more is a contradiction of what he said formerly If his obedience was more then Legal obedience then his obedience was not the sAme in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto for he understands the firsT Covenant to be made according to the moral Law and to confute himself the more manifestly he brings in Pareus and Rivel in the former page to prove that Christs obedience as Mediator was more then legal Pareus asserting a special obedience imposed on the Mediator alone and Rivet a singular command of laying down his life from Joh. 10. 18. Now let the Reader judge especially such as are acquainted with Pareus judgement whether that special obedience which was imposed on the Mediator alone be no other then legal obedience or whether it be the same in nature and measure which we in the first Covenant stood bound unto according to Mr. Nortons sense of that Covenant And secondly let the Reader also judge whether it be possible for Mr. Norton to make a true description of the true nature of Christs satisfaction while he is thus confounded in the nature of Christs obedience as Mediator SECT 2. In page 140. He calls the Dialogues distinction of Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience A new Law and a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law And in page 108. He calls this distinction An erroniâ—us and mis-leading distinction Reply WHether Mr. Norton will own this distinction or no the matter will be the lesse with a judicious Reader because it hath the approbation of many eminenâ— orthodox Divines besides Pareus and Rivet who do ground the said distinction on these and the like Scriptures Joh. 10. 18. Joh. 14. 31. Joh. 17. 4. Heb. 10. 7 9 10. Psal 40. 7 8. Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Es 53. 10. Heb 10 7. In Vindiciae legis lect 1. p. 13. See also Blake on the Covenant p. 25. 1 It is disputed saith Mr. Burges Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever saith he the Arians from the grant of this did infer Christs absolute inferiority to this Father yet saith he our orthodox Divines do conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it 2 Mr. Gataker doth place the merit of Christs obedience and satisfaction wholly in this kind of Mediatorly obedience Bartho Wegil Sangalensis â—n his Ans to the 5 Reason of the 13 Thesis and not in his legal obedience for thus he answers to Bar. Wegiline that holds to Christs legal obedience for merit as Mr. Norton doth Non est necesse ut Christus legis moralis sive naturalis placita implendo vel sibi vel nobis quiâ—quam fuerit promeritus non magis quam ut Angeli qua creatura rationalis unaquaequae creationis ipsius nomine Deo creatori ex essicio debeat quicquid lex illa à quiquam exigit In English thus It is not necessary that Christ in fulfilling the moral and natural Law should desErve any thing for himself or us no more then the Angels seeing every rational creature in the very name of its creation ows all things on duty to its Creator whatsoever the Law requires of any and he doth fully manifest his judgement in his Elenchtick Animadversions upon Gomaâ—us p. 1. Thes 1. p. 15. Thes 8. p. 17. Thes 9. p. 19. Thes 11. p. 25. Thes 15. p. 49. Thes 32. And in his Animadversions upon the disputes betwixt Piscator and Lucius in the meritorious cause of our justification Part is prmae Sect. 1. p. 2. 12. Sect. 4. p. 18. Sect. 6. numero 4. p. 19. Sect. 7. numero 1. Partis secundae p. 57. Sect. 2. numero 16. 70. Sect. 8. numero 6. And there he gives this reason because Christ performed moral obedience for himself and not for us 3 Pareus saith That those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse De Justiâ—iâ— Christi activâ passiâ—â p. 101 102. and in his
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
there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christâ— suffering of the essential curse Reason 1. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His Answer in pag. 120. is this It is evident that as Christ suffered the torments of hell in kind in his Soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of Hell though not inflicted after the same manner Reply 1. Any man may see that in this Answer he doth plainly contradict and confute his first principal Proposition and also his Assertion in his first Distinction for in this and in other places also he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential punishment of the curse and in pag. 123. he saith That Christ both in Soul and Body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time but in his Answer he dares not venture to say that he suffered the torments of hell in his body in kind as he did in his soul But instead of making a clear Answer to my Quere he propounds another Quere Who can deny saith he but that he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell His first ground-work was that Christ suffered in a way of exact justice the essential punishment of the curse of the Law and now he flies to the word Equivalent all that know any thing of the strict justice of the Law do know that it will not alter one joâ— from the punishment threatned in kind to that which is equivalent if Mr. Norton being now put to a pinch to answer this Quere will allow of so much alteration from the letter of the Law to equivalency then he doth also affirm that the Law was relaxed to make a new Covenant for equivolency and yet in pag. 146. and in pag. 174 he denies acceptilation and thus he crosseth himself up and down and stands not fast to his first ground-work 2 He crosseth his first ground-work in page 121. It is sufficient saith he to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul Reply 2. He that hath but half an eye may see that in this Answer he doth fully overthrow his first fundamental Proposition and his first Distinction for in those places he hath affirmed that Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell in kind but now he saith it is sufficient to integrate and make up the full execution of the full measure of wrath that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul first hee confesseth that Christ did not suffer the full essential Curse in his body and then by some Revelation he knows that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul beleeve him that list and yet he crosseth this also in page 123 for there hee saith That Christ both in soul and body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time And thus he makes the eternal Curse in Gen. 2. 17. one while to be executed in kind only and another while to be arbitrary and to bee suffered either in kind or else in that which is equivalent hee allows a lesse punishment to his body and so much more to his soul doubtless he must know this by some private Revelation for he cannot find any Scripture that is rightly interpreted that will own it But yet Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it thus The measure of Hell-pains saith he is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell Reply 3. What a deceitful kind of reasoning is this for all men know that the fallen Angels have no bodies and therefore they must needs suffer the full measure of Hell-torments without bodily Torments And in page 122. he saith according to his fundamental Proposition That Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Reply 4. But Mr. Norton doth plainly crosse this Assertion also for hee said formerly that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul here he acknowledgeth that Christ had some forgivenesse in respect of his bodily Torments And in page 122. Hee saith That Christ had not so much as the least drop of water to ease him in the least particle of his suffering that was due to him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time Reply 5. This he doth also plainly crosse for in page 68. hee doth acknowledge that Christ had a taste of consolation in the time of his Agony in the Garden so that hee doth sometimes give Christ a taste of consolation under his Essential Torments and sometimes not a drop of consolation either he must confesse that Christ was not yet under the essential punishment of the Curse in the Garden or else he must confesse that his Position in page 122. is not true But he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential Cuâ—sâ— in the Garden in page 70. in these words Hee had clods rather then drops streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was heard or seen before nor since And saith he The true reason thereof is Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death And in page 121. Christ suffered the Torments of Hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral Curse Gal. 3. 13. and in the Garden Hence it follows that by these two last places he doth justifie his former Position in page 122. but still that is contradictory which I cited in page 68. And thus Mr. Norton doth confute and contradict himself and being uncertain in his principles he leaves the truth of Christs satisfaction uncertain to a scrutinous conscience Mr. Samuel Heiron saith in page 244. That the extremity of Hell-torments is made
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
effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I thinâ— the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr. Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joâ—es of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have aâ—corded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The sounder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical
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
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
in Gen. 2. 17. I have denied it in his sense in the former Argument But it had been more true if he had framed his Argument thus Either the Elect suffered the spiritual death in sin threatned on all mankind in Gen. 2. 17. or else God is not true as I have opened the sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But God is true c. His third Argument is this in pag. 11. He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7. 22. Reply I deny the major for I have shewed in Chap. 2. that if it were indeed true that Christ was a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his debt of obedience and to suffer the curse of his disobedience according to the conditions of the first Covenant Then 1. Christ must go to the land of Eden to eat of the tree of Life that so he may truly perform that act of obedience for Adam And 2. He must be dead in sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Iesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priesthood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Aias in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8. which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Iudab and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20 21 22. God snare and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That be would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates is for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his oighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige us to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not oblige us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De
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
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
so called by a certain similitude but not properly the wounds received in the trial of Masteries from the opposite Champion are improperly called punishments no sufferings are properly punishments but such as are legally inflicted for Delinquency 5 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered were not inflicted on him from Gods legal and vindicative wrath but hee suffered them from his voluntary combate with Sathan and his Instruments as I have at large shewed in Chap. 16. and in divers other places 6 Hence it is evident That Christ could not in true propriety of speech bee our legal Surety in Grotius judgement joyntly bound with us to fulfill the Law and suffer the Curse and so to pay our full debt in kind as Mr. Norton holds 7 I grant notwithstanding that Christ may improperly be called our Surety because hee did of his own accord undertake the combate with Sathan and his Instruments for our redemption and by his constant patience and obedience to the death he overcame them all and at last in the perfection of his obedience he made his soul a sacrifice by which he obtained the prize even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Norton legal Surety as a free Redeemer is from a delinquent Surety 8 Hence it follows also that in Grotius judgement there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters and a Surety in criminal cases but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction or else hee would never have brought the instance of Pauls ingaging to Philemon verse 18. to exemplifie Christs obligation to his Philemon v. 13. punishments 9 Hence it follows That though a man may lay down his life for others as voluntary Sureties in divers cases as Mr. Weams shews in his four Degenerations page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late dayes only The Reader that pleaseth may bee fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholick Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Irenaeus Anno Christ 180. untill Bernard who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation seeing they differ from him as much as truth doth from error Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon pec part 2. l. 1. 6. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds and yet hee doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held If saith he any man say That by accounting Christ a sinner they mean no more but that God deals with him as if he did account him to be a sinner this though it be true would not avail them for thereby they overthrow the foundation that they laid That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin except hee were first made guilty of our sins such an imputation of our sins to Christ I think no Divine will deny I am sure saith hee it hath warrant enough from the Fathers And in Sect. 11. he cites some of the Fathers speaking thus He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner and to dye as one accursed For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Chrysost in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Thecphilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith He made him subject to death for us and to dye as if hee had been a notorious offender And saith he in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture for whereas it is said in Isa 53. 12. Isa 53. 12. Hee was numbred with the Transgressors This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying and it theweth mens dealing with him and not Gods opinion of him And with him they crucified two Theeves the one on his right hand and the other on his left and the Scripture was sulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 17 28 And saith he in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines than that hee took on him to expiate for our sins by his blood and sacrifice according to I Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore wee may conclude that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might bee a sacrifice for sin or dye as a sinner although our sins were not so imputed to him that God accounted him to be guilty of them And saith he in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear because his sacrifice was such as might bee without such imputation for it was the price of our Redemption as I shewed in part 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5 6. But there may well be and ordinarily is Redemption by a price without any kind of imputation And you may also see what hee speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton the Judicious may please to take notice that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture than such as he hath cited out of Chrysostome and Theophilact 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the wrirings of the Ancient Fathers 3 Let me adde this Testimony of Mr. Wotton both from my own knowledge and from the testimony of other eminent Christians that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity one that suffered much for Christ through the iniquity of the times a man of great reading in all kind of Writers both Ancient and Modern and a man of deep judgement And his book of Reconciliation was printed in his old age after much debate and study and revising and therefore what hee saith in this point of imputation ought not and will not bee slighted of the Judicious The wise will understand 4 Hence it follows That the Reader that pleaseth may yet hee more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius that this affirmation of Mr. Wottons is a manifest truth namely That our sins were no otherwise imputed to Christ but as hee bare our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus because as I perceive by several Writers Socinus denied Christs sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christs satisfaction 6 On the other hand I do also beleeve that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as hee did Socinus Tenent for I have shewed in my former Reply
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
and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time â—ugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And thus instead of entring the Lists with the Devil according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith He entred the Lists to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father and instead of the Devils wrath they put in Gods wrath and instead of the Devils force they put in Gods force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled most unadvisedly used by Calvin and others And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviours Agony be sutable to the language of the holy Scriptures whether he was pressed and compelled by Gods immediate wrath And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil and his instruments according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it bee not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father and to be pressed under his wrath and to conflict with eternal death as Mr. Nortons phrases are was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father Perhaps you will answer hee was able because his humane nature subsisted in his divine I grant that it alwayes subsisted in the divine because the divine nature was never angry with the humane but yet it doth not follow that it was alwayes assisted and protected by the divine for then it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan and his instruments I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane that the infirmities of the humane might appear and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power But let it be as the objection would have it namely that his humane nature being assisted by his divine was able to induce to bee pressed under his Fathers wrath Then it wil follow from thence that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not onely with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him Reply 23. First I have shewed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures Secondly Was it ever heard that a Mediator between two at variance did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation These are paradoxes in Divinity by which the clear Truth is made obscure Such Tenents are like the smoak of the bottomless pit that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen nor heard before or since the true reason thereof saith he is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it wrath of God Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cryes and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause But I perceive that Mr. Norton himself is put in a wavering mind in p. 66. whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause for when he had expounded his Query he concludes thus We leave it to them that have leasure and skill to enquire And saith he Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meer natural death notwithstanding saith he our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument Hence 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfie a doubting conscience 2 This speech of his our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument is a plain acknowledgment that the Agony of Christ and his sweat like blood is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death and yet in p 70 39 68 89 c. he laies great weight upon his Agony as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell but by Gods extraordinary dispensation as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature namely of the sensitive soul that is between mans mortal body and his immortal soul in a moment Seeing he holds that his death was caused by the wrath of God For he saith That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed For this is a clear Truth That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell untill it bee made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment whether
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
as I have noted it in the Dialogue In Fox tom 1. p. 50 80 tom 2. p. 130. p. 58. In the conflict saith Ball on the Covenant pag. 284. his Faith was most firm not shaken with any degree of unbeleef And saith Dr. Sibs on Matth. 27. 46. Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace as if Faith or Love or Joy in God or any other Grace were taken from Christ O no saith he he beleeved when he said My God my God Unto these words of his I put in the Grace of Joy in a parenthesis because he had said before in general That Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace and thence I infer that then he was not forsaken of the Grace of Joy in the good of Gods promises for that is one of the Graces Gal. 5. no not then when his sufferings were most grievous to his flesh his Joy in the apprehension of Gods Fatherly love in his promises was not then interrupted and therefore out of that his never interrupted apprehension or rather joyful view of the light of Gods countenance and of the good of his promises he like a conquering Combater indured the cross and dispised the shame Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christs soul was as full of Grace as the Sun is full of light without any eclipse and as full of Grace as the Sea is full of water without any ebb as it is acknowledged by almost all Divines how can it be true which Mr. Norton affirms that he was in the spiritual death of his soul when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For where there is any true Grace there the soul is spiritually made alive and therefore true Grace is called the Grace of life 1 Pet. 3. 7. where the Spirit of God abides there the soul is in life and therefore the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Life Rom. 8. 2. and therefore Christ could not be in the spiritual death of his soul because he always had the Spirit of Grace in him above measure Abominable then to God must that doctrine needs be which Mr. Norton hath published that makes Christs soul to be under the power of a spiritual death Some learned Divines do say That none can die the second spiritual death in soul before they die the first death in sin therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity that makes Christs soul to be spiritually dead under the pain of loss and sense for by that Doctrine he doth also necessarily make him to be devoid of all Grace and so consequently to be spiritually dead in sin which is horrible blasphemy 2 His Tenent in making Christs soul to be without the comfort of a promise at the very instant when he made his soul a sacrifice doth make Christ to be a blemished Priest and so consequently it makes his death and sacrifice to be an abomination to God for a Priest that is a mourner in soul is a blemished Priest therefore a Priest must not be a mourner in soul at the time of offering any sacrifice Lev. 10. 19. 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring Gods Reconciliation and Gods Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoycing Num. 12. 14. Lev. 10. 19 20. Deut. 16. 11 15. Neh. 8. 9. doubtless therefore all Christs soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satans ill usage was fully over as soon as he had done his prayers in the Garden and yet I grant also that when he hung upon the Cross he was under most grievous tortures and pains to his sences but yet I say also that those pains born with perfect patience did not hinder the sweet sense of his inward joy that had both conquered Satan and made reconciliation with God and that now had recovered the Elect and so had divided the spoil with the strong adversary Satan which act of dividing the spoil is always done with joy 1 Sam. 30. 26. Heb. 12. 2. Isa 9. 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa 53. 12. I will divide saith God and he shall divide the spoyl with the strong 7 Take Mr. Nortons words into consideration in p. 89. Christ saith he knew that God was his Mat. 27. 46. fully understood the glory of the blessed and that his soul presently upon his dissolution should be in Paradice Luk. 23. 43. Doth not Mr. Norton in these words prove that Christ was not totally deprived of the sense of the good of the promises For now in his greatest torments on the Cross he saith he promised paradise to himself as well as to the penitent theef and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion SECT 4. Secondly I come now to shew that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross in the formality of his death Reply 15. I Grant that God by his declared permission to Satan in Gen. 3. 15. did allow him so much power as to pierce Christ in the foot-soals namely to crucifie him as a sinful malefactor with the soars of death just like to other malefactors that were formally killed thereby But yet for all this I say also that God did not give the Devil so much power as to put Christ to death formally because he had ordained Christ to have a Priestly power in the formality of his death by his unchangeable oath to the end that he might make his death a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to Covenant But in case he had been put to death formally by the power of Satan and his Instruments then his death could not have been a sacrifice unless he will say that God ordained the Devil to be a Priest it could have been no more but a death of Martyrdom But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin Reply 16. In this speech M. Norton doth much wrong the sense of the blessed Scriptures for in Job 10. 17 18. Christ saith This commandement have I received of my Father to let none take away my life from me formally but to lay it down or as Tendal translates it to put it from me of my self Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christs death and the death of all other men as I shall more at large expounded this Scripture by and by 2 His death is called a sacrifice and none could make it to be a sacrifice but such a Priest as was called of God to be the Priest and no other act could make it to be a sacrifice but such an act of such a Priest as did formally take away the life of the sacrifice Therefore he must be the onely Priest in the formality of his own death Heb. 9. 26 28. 10. 12. and no other mans death is called a sacrifice formally but his 3 All other men die by co-action because they are sinners in Adam but Christ was no sinner
therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exactly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Job 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing our sincs to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of death are often called death in Scripture though they prove not in the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue doth all along affirm that Christs death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows so in Job 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Ioh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue M. Norton passeth over never speaks to it first or last which is this He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice must be a Priest but the death of Christ was a Sacrifice therefore he that takes away his life formally must be the Priest Hence the Dialogue infers that the Roman Souldiers did not take away his life formally because they were Executioners rather than Priests neither did his Fathers wrath take away his life formally because he was not the Priest and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself and therefore none but he must take away his life formally Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument but he passeth by this and pleads that Christs suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments was full satisfaction and thence he must also hold that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christs death Heb. 9. 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion when there is not one Text nor I beleeve one Classical Author who assirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrar plentiful Texts and Testimondes that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9. 12. and 6 9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus But also the Scriptures themselves in saying The Jews did not actually put Christ to death Reply 23. I have shewed immediately afore that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews with murthering the Lord of life yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors some ancient and some later that concur with the Dialogue That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice 1 Athanasius cont Arianos Orat. 4. saith To have power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again this is not the property of men but it is the power of the Son of God for no man dyeth by his own power but by necessity of nature and that against his will but Christ being God had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body and to resume the same again when hee would 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9. saith Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh when he saith None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17 18. down and power to take it again Let us consider what he meaneth who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death This neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus for if Christ had dyed as the Theeves did that were crucified with him he could not have said That he laid down his soul of himself but after the manner of such as dye but now Jesus crying with a strong voyce gave up the ghost and as a King left his body his power greatly appeared in this that at his own free power and will leaving his body he dyed 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur Chr. Orat. 1. saith Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself of whom dependeth all power how with full and sovereign power and not by necessity of nature he severed his soul from his body as he said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again 4 Turtullian de Resur carnis cap. 48. saith thus The Lord though he carried about a soul fearing unto death yet not falling by death 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith With a faint voyce or rather speechless we dye that are of the earth but he which came from heaven breathed out his soul with a loud voyce Ibid. ad Hedibiam Q. 8. Wee must say it was a shew of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again yea the Centurion hearing him say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and streight way of his own accord to send forth his spirit moved with the greatness of his wonder said Truly this was the Son of God 6 Chrysostome in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith Therefore Christ cryed with a loud voyce that hee might shew this to be done by his own power Mark saith That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead and the Centurion also therefore chiefly beleeved because he saw Christ dye of his own accord and power 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith By so doing the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare that he had his whole life and death in his own free power wherefore Mark saith that Pilate not without admiration asked if Christ were already dead he addeth likewise that the Centurion chiefly for that reason beleeved because hee saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry and signification of great power 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini saith What intreaty for life shall wee think was there where the soul was both sent out with power and recalled with power 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund lib. 3. saith Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would and take it again when he would how great power might the God-head of Christ have And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John on these words None taketh my soul from me saith No birth-Law taketh my soul from me no incroaching time that tameth all things nor necessity which is unchangeable counsel but ruler of my self I of my own accord yeeld up my willing soul 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voyce sent
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
withdraw protection from his humane nature that so his humane nature might bee the more sensibly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And withall I say That though Christ had this voluntary weakness yet it did not decay his natural vigor by degrees as the like sufferings doth decay our sinful natures for the constitution of his humane nature was so perfectly orgonized and moulded that he could at his pleasure take our true humane infirmities for the accomplishing of his Combate according to the Articles of the eternal Covenant as he did in his Agony in the Garden And again at his pleasure he could re-assume his perfect strength of nature as hee did after his prayers in the Garden as I have formerly shewed more at large he dyed not saith Mr. Smith of Clavering afore cited with extremity of pains as others do And saith Mr. White of Dorchester and Mr. Perkins afore cited by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under his torments longer than the two Theeves And saith Erasmus afore cited He did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying And saith Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue page 101. Christ dyed not by degrees as his Saints do his senses did not decay no pangs of death took hold upon him but in perfect sense patience and obedience both of body and soul he did by his infinite power voluntarily resign his Spirit as he was praying into the hands of his Father without any trembling or struggling or without any shew of the sense of his pains And several others both of the ancient and later Divines I have immediately cited that speak to this purpose which proves that Christ had no necessary weakness to bear his Cross but voluntary weakness hee had at his pleasure that hee might bee truly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And take also into consideration what Austin saith de Trinit lib. 13. c. 14. where he expounds 〈◊〉 Cor. 13. 4. thus even of that infirmity wherein Christ was crucified the Apostle also saith 2 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 The weakness of God is stronger than men Whatsoever seemed weakness in Christ saith he is so called in comparison of his divine power And again his weakness was such that it far passed the power and strength of us men and therefore in 1 Cor. 1. 24 25. Christ crucified is called the power of God because he was both God and man in one person and therefore as soon as he had finished all his sufferings wherein he shewed 1 Cot. 1. 24 25. his true voluntary weakness hee breathed out his soul even whiles he was in the full strength of nature by the joynt concurrence of both his natures To dye saith Bernard is a great infirmity but so to dye saith he is an exceeding power Hence then I conclude That when the Executioners did compel a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it It doth not prove that Christ had less strength of nature left to bear it than the Theeves had as Mr. Norton doth argue it proves no more but this either that Christ had voluntary weakness or else that they thought him to have such necessary weakness appertaining to his nature as other sinful men have that are over-burdened for they could not discern his voluntary weakness from necessary weakness unless they had known him to be God and man in one person and therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross And who can tell but that the Theeves had some to help them bear their Cross as well as Christ had and therefore it is a weak argument to prove that Christ had less strength of nature to bear his Cross than the two Theeves because they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross seeing the Scripture is silent whether the two Theeves did bear their own Cross without any help from others But saith Mr. Norton in page 168. 'T is true no Torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and it is also true that Torments killing in themselves could kill him when he pleased And saith he in page 86. Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power Joh. 10. 18. yet saith he by his limited power be could not But as our Surety be was bound to permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of darkness for the fulfilling of what was written concerning him Luke 22. 53. The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary obliged permission did take away his life they did not only endeavour but also actually kill him c. Reply 27. I have often warned to have it the better marked That the death of Christ is set out to us two wayes in the blessed Scriptures First Either more largely by his suffering the pains of death as a sinful Malefactor from his envious Combater Satan Or secondly more strictly by setting out the formality of his death as it was made a sacrifice when his soul was separated from his body by his own Priestly power But Mr. Norton is much displeased with this distinction because it crosseth his Doctrine of Satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell as our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam Now in the first sense it is true That Christ was ordained to be the seed of the sinful deceived woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane infirmities hee was to combate with our malicious Enemy Satan and in that respect he must permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of the Prince of darkness to do him all the mischief he could to provoke his patience and to disturb him in the course of his obedience according to Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen. 3. 15. 2 But yet notwithstanding it is not any where written that Christ covenanted to let the powers of darkness to take away his life formally I do not find that Christ had limited himself by his obliged permission to let the Jews and Romans take away his life actually and formally as Mr. Norton holds Nay I say the blessed Scriptures do plainly deny this as I have opened Job 10. 17 18. in Reply 25. Secondly It is also further evident that none but himself was ordained to bee the Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice because God made him a Priest for ever after the order of Melchlsedek by an oath which declares That according to the eternal Decree and the unchangeable Council Heb. 7. 21. and Covenant of God he should be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice and in that respect Christ saith None taketh my vital soul from me I lay it down of myself I have power to
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
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
Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Job 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonah had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but
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