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
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
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
that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joynec ' to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitted by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death bue a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. The quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christ obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Arrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen
3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 96 22 chap. 13 14. Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promisess By which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grâ—pe out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123 holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p. 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to maintain it p. 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as be did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordamed a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfuâ—â— ness to Christ in the very time when he diâ— execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christ suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they have any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult p. 77 Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply 24. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential tormonts of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore be did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guiss of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then his nature as it was the fountain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then be must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the bigbest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by nature generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because be voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can be he said to be our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89. 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p. 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration
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
affirm most dangerously p. 315 307 A true description of the vital soul and so consequently of the death of Christs vital soul but not of his immortal soul for our Redemption p. 320 A true description of our natural fear of death p. 321 Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously because they were governed by right reason p. 322 Add this Note to p. 322. Disorderly and irregular fear and grief doth sometimes prove lethal and deadly but it is dangerous to affirm the same of Christs regular fear and grief I find it recorded in the French Academy p. 34. That Herennus the Sycilian dyed with fear for he being found to be a Co-partner in the conspiracy of Caius Gracchus was so astonished and oppressed with fear in consideration of his judgement yet to come that he fell down stark dead at the entry of the prison And it is also recorded that Plautinus dyed of grief for upon the sight of his dead wife he took it so to heart that he cist himself upon her dead body and was there stifled with sorrow and grief But it is most dangerous to make Christs soul-sorrows to be lethal and deadly after this manner for saith Damasen His passions never prevented his regular will neither might his death be effected by natural causes but by his own Priestly power or else it could not be a Sacrifice Christ was not fully amazed in his Agony p. 323 By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ even in the very point of time when he was in the execution of his Priestly office p. 327 76 Mr. Norton stretcheth the word very heavy in Mark 14. 33. beyond the Context p. 328 Luke 22. 44. and Christs Agony explained p. 331 Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that Justice subjected to death p. 333 296 Ainsworth and others do make the earnest prayers of Christ in the Garden to be a cause in part of his Agony p. 334 * Fervency of spirit in prayer to be delivered from a natural fear and dread of an ignominious death may force out a bloody sweat p. 335. A true description of Christs Agony p. 336 * A Declaration of the Plot of the blessed Trinity for mans Redemption p. 341. at line 18. All Christs greatest outward sufferings were by Gods appointment to be from his Combater Satan p. 344 169 178 266 311 387 Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his Baptism when he was first exâ—râ—nsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cros p. 346 Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature but in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities of sorrow and fear at his appoaching ignominious death p. 353 Some expressions of the Ancient Divines do cleerly evidence that they could not hold any such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton doth p. 356 * Some few of the Hebrew Doctors writings yet extant do speak of the sufferings of Christ from Satans enmity p. 357 at line 16. Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death in sin and then our spiritual death in sin was the meritorious cause of Gods justice first in denouncing our bodily death and secondly in denouncing a judgement to follow to each departed soul p. 357 The Pelagians cannot be convinced That original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granâ—eâ— that God threatned a bodily death in Gen 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin p. 358 Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath though in that nature he was able to conflict with Satan and his instruments p. 359 If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton doth affirm then it must needs be a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it p. 361 CHAP. XVII THe Hebrew word Azab hath not two contrary significations as Mr. Norton doth affirm to amuse his Reader about the manner of Gods forsaking Christ upon the Cross p. 371 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisement p. 375 169 Our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane Ratiocination which saith the Annotation is but meer folly and madness p. 377 God forsook Christ on the Cross because he did not then protect him against the Powers of darkness as he had done very often in former times p. 379 One main reason why God forsook the Humane nature of Christ upon the cross was that so his Humane nature might be the more tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities in all the afflictions that were written of him p. 383 174 The Humane nature was no true part of the divine person but an appendix onely p. 387 * Add this Note to the marginal Note in p. 387. Zanchy in his sixth and seventh Aphorismes to the confession of his faith p. 280. saith That the Humane nature was no true part of the person of Christ and saith he in his twelfth Aphorism at 4. Though the nature taken to speak properly is not a part of his person yet at 5. he saith It is acknowledged to be as it were a part of the person of Christ because without it we cannot define what Christ is and because of them both there is but one and the same Hypostasie Though the Humane nature of Christ ever had its dependance and subsistence in the divine after the union yet such was the singleness and the unmixedness of the divine nature in this union that it could leave the Humane nature to act of it self according to its own natural principles p 388 * Add this Note to p. 389. at line 6. In two things saith Pareus this similitude of Athanasius doth not agree and before him Zanchy said as much for in his sixth Aphorism he saith It is freely confessed by Justinus and by other Fathers that this fimilitude doth not agree in all things to this great mystery * The Geneva Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth say That Christ was in a horrible conflict between Faith and Desperation and so by necessary consequence it makes Christ to be a true inherent sinner and this blasphemous Note hath been printed and dispersed in many thousand copies and yet where is the Boanerges to be found that hath vindicated Christ from this dangerous Tenent p. 393. God did not so forsake the soul of Christ on the cross as to deprive him of the sweet sense of the good of the Promises as Mr. Norton bolds most dangerously p. 394 Christ was often his owne voluntary afflicted with Soul-sorrows p. 404 178 Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice But
actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zanchy Tract Theol c 4. de peccato originall the body is corrupt it resisteth the soul and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning obeyeth the inclination thereof and is governed by it and therefore hence it follows First That Adams sin was not a sin against the moral Law for there is no sin against the moral Law properly till the soul consent Secondly Hence it follows That the guilt of Adams bodily sin was not imputed to his soul till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses Bâ—t the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found
was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us with out some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent â—and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
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
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
taken away Col. 2. 14. 2 I confesse I am at a losse to find out the force of Mr. Nortons reason here given But it may be it will the better appear when it is drawn into the form of an Argument And thus it may run If the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Then absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation not of the essence of Punishment But the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Therefore absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation But not of the essence of Punishment Suppose the Antecedent part of the first Proposition were granted though it cannot bee all granted yet I cannot see strength enough in it to make good the consequence It is no good way of reasoning to argue what is essential or not essential in the Curse from the event namely from what de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Iustice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Iustice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â—â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the In his Marrow 〈◊〉 1. 6. 25. n. 38. creature coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the probate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Iustice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blaspherry to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods
more truly said because Christ did not deserve the Essentials Let the unpartial Reader judge between us CHAP. VI. Mr. Nortons third Distinction in Page 9. examined which is this Distinguish concerning Imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt taken not for the commission of sin but for the obligation to punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the latter sense Reply 1. I Grant that Gods imputation of sin is either of sin it self or of guilt or rather of both for they are correlates and therefore Gods imputation whether it bee understood of sin it self or of sin and guilt jâ—yntly It doth alwayes in Scripture-language refer to the same subject But saith Mr. Norton in Page 41. Guilt and Punishments are Relates Reply 2. I grant they are alwayes Relates according to the order of legal proceedings in Courts of justice and in this way and order of satisfaction doth Mr. Norton go all along But in point of Christs satisfaction I go all along in the All Christs suâ—â—eâ—iâ—gs were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins impuâ—ed way and order of Voluntary causes and according to the way and order of those causes the suffering of punishments is not a Relate to the imputation of sin preceding As for example in the point of tryal of Masteries there the suffering of punishments is meerly and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant both in the Law-makers and in the undertakers and such wâ—re all the sufferings of Christ they were all from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and all his outward sufferings were from his voluntary undertaking to enter the lists with Sathan according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. and not from the imputation of the guilt of our sins according to the order of Court-justice I grant also that when ever God doth punish any one in See Burges on Justif p. 27. anger it is alwayes from the imputation of sin in the subject and so saith Mr. Burges God afflicts none namely in anger but where there is sin in the subject and in that sense guilt and punishment are Relates but yet from the Voluntary cause and Covenant punishments may be suffered without judicial imputation and so consequently without judicial anger But of this see more in my Reply to 2 Cor. 5. 21. The guilt of Adams sin saith Dr. Reynolds is inseparable from In his siâ— fulnesse of sin p. 35. the sin it self being the proper passion of it Lo in this short sentence how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adams first sin he makes his guilt to be the proper passion of his first sin And hence it follows necessarily according to Mr. Norton That the guilt of Adams sin being imputed to Christ he must be spiritually dead in sin for spiritual death in sin is the proper guilt and proper passion of Adams first sin This I hinted at in the Dialogue And of this see more in Chap. 2. in R. 2. ult If original sin had not been ordained in Gods justice to bee the proper guilt and punishment of Adams first sin then it would follow that Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin And now compare Mr. Nortons distinction to the guilt of Adams sin Imputation of guilt saith he is the obligation to punishment By this Doctrine it follows that Christ did suffer the guilt and punishment of Adams first sin namely a spiritual death in sin Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed God imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all men because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by vertue of Gods Covenant touching mans nature in general imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam because Gods Covenant was made with Adam and the nature of all mankind in general as I have shewed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatned but so was not Christ hee was not of Adam by ordinary Generation Our guilt saith Mr. Baxter in his Preface to Mr. Ayr page 7. was Reatus culpae poenae propter culpam nostram ex obligatione leg is Christs guilt is bat Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obliga 〈…〉 s ad eandem the same in value but noe Eâ—dem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molianaeus page 224. he doth justly taxe this kind of Imputation to bee the very root and master veyn of all Antinomianism And in page 225. saith hee Bee it known to you therefore that Christ did obey and suffer in the person of a Mediator and not in persona delinquentis though for the sins of the Delinquent being obliged to suffer by his voluntary undertaking and therefore his sufferings or obedience are none of ours as performed by him But Mâ— Norton in the point of imputing our sins to Christ doth go beyond his said Distinction as I apprehend For in page 79. ult Hee saith That Christ was a notorious Malefactâ—r having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God In page 98. Whom wee have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect both hanged upon the Crâ—sse and others In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Reply 3. In these and other like places he makes our sins as wâ—ll as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It cannot beshewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a In Rom 5. p. 121 b. sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hâ—e hath before committed sin unlesse wee will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them P. Martyr I confess speaks this of Infants that dye before they have committed any actual sin but yet it is a four square truth in general Turn it on which side you will and it will lye fast he tells Piggâ—ius that God could not impute the guilt of Adamâ— sin to Infants unlesse Infants had been first truly guilty of Adams sin and it is evident that all Infants and all the world are truly guilty of Adams sin because all mankind were in Adam not only naturally but also legally in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him as the head of mans nature in general So that by the force of that Covenant concerning mans nature in general all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant in case of Adams obedience and in the evil of the Curse of that Covenant in case of his disobedience and therefore seeing all had this equal interest in the Covenant of nature it follows that wee had an interest in his
to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of ourguilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death iâ— not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their
his 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
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promisea Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to afflict him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the
and so onely was Christ of all mankind in the sight of God and of his Law Mark this last sentence in the sight of God and of his Law this is point blank against Mr. Nortons Tenent as by the places cited out of him in Chapter 6. may bee soon seen 2 John Frith and Dr. Barns whose works are joyned to Tindal have no other imputation of sin to Christ but his voluntary taking of our punishments according to Mr. Wotton and the Ancient Fathers 3 Frith cites Fulgentius de side thus In those carnal sacritices in the time of the Law was a signification of the flesh of Christ which hee without sin should offer for our sins 4 Marbeck in his Common places saith that Austin did well say sed nostra delict a sua delict a fecit ut suam justitiam nostram justitiam saceret that is saith hee by way of Paraphrase he was counted and deemed as a sinner because that in his unjust suffering In his Com. pl. p 1026. hee might justly save sinners that beleeve in him And saith he the most part of the learned Expositors bee of this mind and he doth not parsphrase on Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apo. Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capto Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infi In his seven Candlesticks p. 352. mities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sent and Japhet did Noabs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by Iohn Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sins And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Origen Melancthoe Bucer Calvin Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In meralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our
wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his 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
the curse of it is laid more on the shame than on the pain for in all other kinds of death as soon as the life was taken away by the executioners the body was presently taken away out of sight and covered from further reproach but these kind of persons that were first stoned to death and after hanged on a tree were therefore hanged that they might be a spectacle of further shame and reproach Or in case they were hanged alive according to the Roman manner and left hanging a certain time after their death to be a gazing stock a by-word and a reproach then that made that kind of death to be an accursed death above all other kinds of death For to be under the shame and reproach of men is a great curse of God and therefore shame reproach taunts by-words and curses are all joyned together as terms Synonimas in Jer. 24. 9. in Jer. 42. 18. in Jer. 44. 8 12. And for an innocent to bear these ignominious curses it must needs be a very dreadful thing to the outward man though his innocency may bear up his inward man as it doth in Martyrs and as it did in Christ Heb. 12. 2. And seeing the Devil by Gods declared permission had power to put Christ to this ignominious and long lingring violent death as it is expressed in Gen. 3. 15. therefore it was Gods will that Christ should be sensible of it in the affections of his soul and in that respect his humane nature was often much troubled at the consideration of it as in Psal 69. 7. There Christ saith thus For thy sake have I born reproach shame hath covered my face It was thy declared will and command in Gen. 3. 15. that I should combate with Satan with mans true nature and affections and that he should have power to use me as a malefactor with the greatest ignominy that he could invent and at last peirce me in the foot-soals as a most ignominious malefactor on the tree and I must be sensible of all this as I am true man of the seed of the woman And therefore I say in ver 9. The reproaches of â—hem that reproached thee are fallen on me and therefore I say in vers 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and I am full of heaviness These expressions of his soul-sorrows do tell us the true cause of Christs fear sadness and agony in the Garden in Matth. 26. 37 38. Mark 14. 34 35. and saith he in Psa 22. 6. 〈◊〉 am a worm and no man a reproach of men and the despised of the people All that see me laugh me to scorn they shoot out the lip they shake the head saying he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him These words do directly relate to the shame of his death on the cross as Matthew doth open the sense in Matth. 27. 39 43. and therefore his kind of death is called The scandal of the cross Gal. 5. 11. And his suffering on the cross without the gate is called His reproach Heb. 13. 13. and reproach is a dreadful thing to the Saints and therefore they pray in Psal 119. 22. Remove far from me reproach and contempt and in vers 31. Put vie not to shame And in Psal 89 50 51. Remember Lord the reproach of thy servants wherewith thine enemies have reproached O Lord wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine annointed And therefore Christ in Psal 40. 16. doth imprecate this curse upon them that brought this curse of shame upon him Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame that say unto me aha aha For saith Christ in Psal 109. 25. I became a reproach unto them on the cross they loâ—ked upon me they shaked their heads And we see by experience that men do account the shame of death to be worse than the pains of death and therefore Saul desired his Armor-bearer rather to kill him than the Philistims should come and mock him at his death 1 Sam. 31. 4. and Abimeleck willed his Armor-bearer to kill him rather than men should say to his greater shame that a woman had killed him Judg. 5. 54. for the more shame the more curse of God is in any death And the custom among the Jews was not to put malefactors to death by hanging but they used to hang up the dead body after it was stoned to death for the greater infamy to the sin and sinner therefore hanging among them was not used to denote the curse in respect of the pains of death but onely to set forth the curse of shame and reproach and therefore hanging among them could not be a type of the pains of the eternal curse But secondly It was the custom of the Romans to put the basest sort of Malefactors to death by hanging and after death to let them hang for a time to be a spectacle of ignominy and repreach and therefore the pains of death was in that curse though chiefly the shame is intended by the Apostle in Gal. 3. 13. because it relates to the curse of hanging in Deut. 21. 23. mortis modus morte pejor And the Hebrew Doctors say they bewailed not him that went to be executed but onely mourned inwardly for him they bewailed him not that so say they his disgrace might be his expiation they it seems accounted that the more shame and punishment a condemned person suffered the more it tended to the expiation of his sin from the Land See Dr. Lightfoots Harmony on the New Testament p. 71. And Christ told his Disciples of the ignominiousness of his death by the Romans that the Priests and Scribes should deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucifie him And the story of the Evangelists doth at large set forth the greatness of the curse that was in his death by mockings and revilings 1 They mocked his Prophetical Office saying Prophecy who it is that somte thee Mat. 26 68. 2 They scoffed his Priestly Office saying He saved others himself he cannot save Mat. 27. 42. 3 They mocked his Kingly Office saying Hail King of the Jews Mat. 27. 28. and said They had no King but Caesar Joh. 19. 15. These and such like expressions do set out the scandal of his cross and so the greatness of the curse which Satan with all his might did multiply in a transcendent manner upon him if by any means he could disturb his patience and so pervert him in the course of his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and then Satan had got the victory but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the death of the cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice by his own Priestly power therefore he broke the Devils head and got the victory and so he won the prize And thus have I given a sufficient reason why those that were hanged on a tree were infamed with a
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
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
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
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
obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of Grace In Vindiciae â—lâ—gis â—ect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 166 178. The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did 〈◊〉 make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there so not actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and 〈◊〉 to the end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence it follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby he might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesus Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Wbitgenstenius at the end of vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often ciâ—â— as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect Lev. 18. 5. See Bell on the Covenant p. 136. obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Lawin every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Rom. 2. 13. Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It
one Mediator for so saith the Text he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit namely by his God-head and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament vers 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin And secondly hence it had vertue to confirm the Testament for the many as it is expressed in vers 15 16 17. Thirdly I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9. 27. with Gal. 4. 4 5. which lyes thus He shall confirm the Testament for the Many the last Seven that is to say in the very end of the last Seven which is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed there must of necessity be the death of the Testator for a Testament is confirmed and of force after men be dead it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives Heb. 9. 16 17. The next clause in Daniel is this And in the balf of that Seven which is three years and a half namely in the end of this last half of the last Seven which also is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4. 4. be shall end Sacrifice and oblation and this speech is directly parallel to that in Gal. 4. 4 5. He shall redeem them from under the Law that is to say by one and the same act of his Death and Sacrifice he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation and by that act he shall redeem us not only from the bondage of Moses Ceremonies but also from Sathans Head plot or as it is in vers 24. By his death He shall finish Trespasse-offering and end Sin-offerings and so make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and bring in an everlasting Righteousnesse for he shall confirm unto us all the Legacies of the New Testament by his death where the Spirit for regeneration and forgivenesse of sin for Justification are the general Legacies Thus have I shewed though not so compendiously as I could wish that the word Law in Gal. 4. 4. must bee understood of the ceremonial Law only And therefore first All that Mr. Norton saith touching Christs subjection to the moral Law from Gal. 4. 4. as the proper Law of his Mediatorship there intended falls to the ground And secondly his charge of the second Heresie which he proveth from this Text doth justly fall upon his own head for this is certain that if a Curse be not justly given it shal not come on the innocent Prov. 26 27. but it must return to the giver Psal 109. 17. Thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Norton doth again most grosly wrong this Text to prove that Christ suffered the curse of hell torments in his death in p. 103. The last branch of Mr. Nortons third Query is this In the Acceptation of this Obedience Reply 4. This Acceptation Mr. Norton takes for granted which is denied He should have proved as well as affirmed that God accepted of Christs legal obedience as our obedience then hee had shewed his skill and then it had indeed been meritorious and of such value and sufficiency But because hee doth but barely affirm it therefore I shall passe it by without any further examination here because I have shewed the contrary in the former Section and also in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. His fourth Query is a bare Affirmation And the reason of the denial I will shew when I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. CHAP. IV. The Examination of Mr. Nortons first Distinction in Page 7. which is this Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the Curse And then he makes this to be the distinguishing Character between them The Essential part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth from the Curse considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the condition or disposition of the Patient The Accidental part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth not from the Curse considered absolutely but from the disposition of the Patient being under such a Curse SECT 1. Reply 1. THis Distinction hee takes for granted for hee shews not how or in what sense any of these accidental parts do flow from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse further then by two Humane and Civil Resemblances of his meaning But the Dialogue gave him a fair occasion to clear his meaning by objecting sundry particulars of the Curse and instead of a fair answer hee puts the Reader off with this sleight The reasoning of the Dialogue is impertinent The dispute is about the Essential parts of the Curse these are but Accidental because they proceed not from the Curse absolutely considered but from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse Now seeing he doth thus hide his meaning How can I or the Reader judge what weight of truth there is in his distinction let the Reader judge whether such unexplained distinctions bee not rather evasions than explications SECT 2. YOu may see it saith Mr. Norton exemplified in Civil punishments in the execution of death upon a Malefactor the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of punishment The gradual decay of the senses impotency of spirits are â—ccidental parts of the punishment Or thus saith he it may be further illustrated in the case of the execution of imprisonment upon a Debtor imprisonment is of the essence of punishment but duration in prison is from the disposition of the Debtor namely his insufficiency to pay the debt Reply 2. All the sufferings of Christ were to bee performed The natural order of proceedings in Courts of justice is not fit to exemplifie the order of proceedings in voluntary causes and Covenants from the voluntary cause being founded in Gods good will and pleasure and agreed on by a mutual and reciprocal Covenant between the Trinity and not from the natural order of Court-proceedings but Mr. Norton doth exemplifie all this from the natural order of Court-justice It is all one as if he should exemplifie the Incarnation and the Death of Christ by the natural order of our conception and death It is a known maxim That paralleling of justice between cases Divine and Humane is dangerous and from Humane to Divine is an unsafe way of reasoning and savors too much of prying into the secrets of God contrary to Dâ—ut 20. 29. and of too much boldnesse in giving a reason of Gods eternal decrees which is not modesty in the creature Rom. 11. 33. But Mr. Norton seems to father this opinion and distinction on Dr. Ames in his Answer to Bellarmine about the Eternity of Hell-torments in Christs sufferings as his marginal Note shews But the self-same Dr. Ames in his Marrow lib. 1. c. 16. Sect. 4. 7. 9. doth expresse himself to bee of another mind touching Eternity is essential to the
Torments of Hell the Eternity of Hell-torments hee doth there make the Eternity of duration to be as Essential as the Extremity of pain both in respect of losse and sense and in Sect. 5. hee renders three Reasons of this Eternity 1 Because of the eternal abiding of the Offence 2 Because of the unchangeablenesse of the condition which that degree of punishment doth incur 3 Because of the want of satisfaction Now compare Dr. Ames at one time when he doth plainly lay down the grounds of Divinity with Dr. Ames at another time when hee is pinched to answer Bellarmines Argument and then you may finde him not well to accord with himself Yea Mr. Norton himself gives another reason of the duration of Hell punishments besides inability to satisfie sooner The reason saith he why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first Resurrection namely of Regeneration whereby only the second death is prevented and I may also adde whereby its eternity is prevented This reason which Mr. Norton hath here given makes Eternity essential to Hell-torments The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniences attending it This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments whereby hee labours to make Eternity to bee no more but a circumstance hath these four inconveniences attending it 1 It supposeth that Divine justice in the execution of the legal curse admits of a satisfaction contrary to Psal 49. 7 8 9. Iob 36 18 19. 2 That Eternity of Hell-torments is not absolute without some Ifs or And 's but onely conditional in case the damned cannot give satisfaction sooner 3 To say that Eternity is not an essential part of Hell is to say that Hell may be Hell and yet not be Eternal 4 If this part of the curse viz. Eternity may bee taken away from Hell-torments then Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it It is safest therefore as I conceive to say and hold that eternity of punishment flowing from the Curse is from the voluntary cause or from the free constitution of Gods good pleasure as the due reward of sin Mr. Sam. Hieron saith That the extremity of Hell-torments are made known to us two wayes See Hicrons works p 294. 1 By the Universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun But Mr. Norton opposeth both these 1 Hee dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part hee saith That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body but not in full extremity and therefore hâ—e saith what he wanted in his body hee made it up in his soul-torments in page 121. 2 Hee dispenseth with the eternity of continuance and grants an intermission contrary to the Scripture that telleth us That the worm dyeth not and that the fire never goeth out The Torments of Hell saith Austin de Spiritu Anima lib. 3. c. 56. as I find him cited in Carlisle are perpetual terrible Terrors fear without faith pain without remission the Hangman strangling the Hell-hounds scourging the worm gnawing the conscience accusing and the fire consuming or rather continuing without mercy end relaxation or ease See also at Reply 5. These and such like things propounded in the Dialogue Mr. Norton answers not but puffes them away with this breath They are circumstantial and not of the essence of Punishment SECT 3. The Essential Punishment of the Curse saith he in page 7. is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of Losse Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Losse Mr. Norton is like to lose himself for hee delivers himself variously and contrariously as may bee seen by comparing his expression in this place with his various expressions in other places In page 31. line 5. Hee calls it the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise Here the word sense in Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of losse in respect of the frution of the good of the promise but otherwhiles he saith it was in respect of the sense of the good of the promise by which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning See Dr. Ames in Psal 21. cited also in Sect 4. left out In page 68. Hee saith That Christ had a taste of consolation at present in the Garden But saith he his desertion was total in respect of Sense upon the Crosse In page 111. he saith That the pain of Losse is the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and in page 112. he calls it The privation of the good of the promises In both these places the word sense is left out Now seeing Mr. Norton delivers himself thus variously it may justly stumble any judicious Reader how to understand him whether hee bee to bee understood as leaving out the word sense or taking it in for that word left out or taken in doth much alter the sense In page 118. Hee tells us in the Margin of Separatio quo ad substantiam in respect of substance quo ad sensum in respect of sense and feeling Dr. Ames in Psal 22. saith Wee are not to understand that the desertion of Christ was real but only in respect of sense and feeling and so must the privation of the good of the promise bee understood either that Mr. Norton doth mean it is real or in respect of sense and feeling only The former is a total privation the latter is only partial The former is judgement without mercy Iam. 2. 13. The latter remembers mercy in judgement though it may not be discerned at the present Now if Mr. Nortons meaning bee that Christ suffered such a privation of the good of the promise as is real namely as it is contra-distinguished from privation in sense and feeling then the word sense might well have been left out because it being put in doth cast a mist before the eyes of the Reader But if he mean no more but such a privation of the good of the promise as consists only in sense and feeling and as it is distinguished from the said real privation then it is very improperly called a total privation and then the pain of losse doth contain much more in it than this for a godly man may meet with as much as this in his life time as Spira did if wee suppose him to be godly This Essential punishment saith hee in page 8. was that and only that which Christ suffered Reply 4. I cannot but wonder at his various delivery of himself For in his 5 Dist page 10. He saith That Christ suffered the pains of Hell due to the Elect who for their sins
143. By reason of the obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the obligation but only ours and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed And whereas the satisfaction of Christ is called a gracious acceptation a gracious imputation c. How can any man saith Baxter call it thus If it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ payed to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation needeth no favour to procure acceptance 4 The chief Argument of Grotius and Vossius saith Mr. Baxter in Appendix 39. is drawn from the Tenure of the obligation and from the event The obligation chargeth punishment upon the offender himself only Iâ— the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye Now if the same in the obligation is paid then the Law is executed and not relaxed and then every sinner must dye himself for that is the idem and the very thing threatned so that here Dum alius solvit simul aliud solvitur The Law threatned not Christ but us Besides Christ suffered not thâ— losse of Gods love nor his image and graces nor eternity of Torment 5 Every seventh yeer was a yeer of releasing Debts Deut. 15. 1. figuring the yeer of Gods grace by Christ by whom we have obtained of God the release of our debts that is the forgivenesse of our sins Luke 4. 18. Mat. 6. 12. Mar. 11. 25. this figured that we should be kind one to another forgiving one another even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us Eph. 4. 32. Col. 3. 12 13. Luke 6. 35 36. Now Releasements of a debt and exact payment either by our selves or by our Surety cannot possibly stand with kindnesse and mercy This overthroweth Popish satisfaction and quencheth the fire of Purgatory saith Marbeck and say I this doth overthrow Mr. Nortons Tenent that will allow no other satisfaction but the suffering of the Essential Curse in kind by our Surety and so consequently he leaves no room for Gods gracious releasment of our debts My fourth Reason is this Because it is exceeding derogatory to the infinite satisfaction of Christs sacrifice to place full satisfaction in Christs sufferings of the Essential Torments of Hell on the Crosse before the To affirm full satisfaction by suffering Hell-torments before the compleatment of Christs death doth derogate from the sufficiency of his death and sacrifice formality of his Death Sacrifice which was ordained to be the compleatment of all satisfaction and therefore full satisfaction cannot be the final end of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton makes it to be For in p. 32. 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 Here the Reader may take notice that Mr. Norton makes the final end of Christs sufferings to bee for full satisfaction and to bee accomplished before his death and so consequently hee makes Christs Death and Sacrifice to be altogether vain and needlesse as to the point of satisfaction such a poysonful assertion as this may soon poyson a great deal of Divine Scripture-truth But of satisfaction by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ I shall speak more hereafter especially in Chap. 17. My fifth Reason is in Chap. 5. To affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell is to affirm that Christ suffered from Gods hatred for the Essential Torments of Hell is inflicted from Gods hatred See Chap. 5. Chap. 6. and almost every other Chapter affords a distinct Argument against Hell-torments which the Reader will easily observe But I will propound this one at present for my sixth Reason My sixth Reason is in Chap. 12. The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are called Chastisements in Esa 53. 5. therefore they cannot bee the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods vindicative wrath CHAP. V. His second Distinction examined which is this in Page 9. Distinguish between the wrath of God and the hatred of God Wrath is sometimes taken for Hatred and then it signifies Reprobation c. Though God in the second sense not in the first may be said to be wroth with Christ yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ God bates both persons and sins of the Reprobates he hates sin in the Surety and in the Elect but he ever loved their persons With this compare another speech of Mr. Nortons in page 113. Then saith he the pain of Losse consists not in the meer want of the love or favour of God for the Reprobates Men or Devils are alwayes hated of God Gods Love and Hatred are Eternal and Immutable Reply 1. THough it bee granted that the Hitted of God signifies Reprobation yet there is also a Hatred of God that reacheth unto Eternity This cannot be Reprobation for these two Reasons The essential Torments of Hell is from Gods hatred to affirm therefore that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is to affirm that Christ suffered from Gods hatred 1 The hatred of Reprobation saith Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. doth only deny good but doth not inflict evill save only by the desert of the creature coming between This hatred of God doth inflict the evill of the curse upon the damned Therefore it is a hatred that is distinct from that of Reprobation 2 This hatred is Eternal for though Reprobation bee from Eternity in God yet it is not Eternal and the reason is because the end of Gods Reprobation is the manifestation of his justice Rom. 9. 22. and when Gods justice is manifested and the Curse executed then the end is obtained and so Reprobation ceaseth See Dr. Ames in Marrow l. 1. c. 25. Thes 32. Reply 2. In propriety of speech God is without all passions of anger wrath hatred c. these things are ascribed to God after the manner of men when God doth that which doth make us think him to be angry and to hate because we do so when wee are angry and when we do hate Hence it follows that seeing Mr. Norton holds that God did execute the Essential punishment of Hell-torments upon Christ as they are due to Reprobates that God must do it in hatred to him as well as to the Reprobates and so the Hebrew Doctors in Chap. 15. expound the term Second death from whom it is taken to bee a perpetual misery in the hatred of God And so saith Mr. Ruthersurd in Christs dying page 35. 39. The Hell of the Reprobates is a satisfactory pain and 2 It floweth from the hatred of God But saith Mr. Norton Though God did execute the Essentials upon Christ yet in no sense could be be said ever to hate Christ But how can it be avoided perhaps Mr. Norton will say because God did not execute the accidental and circumstantial parts of the Curse upon Christ But may it not be
Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. 11. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But faith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is so be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statue of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. 8. 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled is on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Iebovah bath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Tement was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Levz 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operate to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience from their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Iesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word Better Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation
it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfactio for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and the Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a two fold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad gives this exposition of Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we 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 are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell is of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the
just in making satisfaction according to Covenant in the exact time foretold for man◠redemption so God upon that performance covenanted to declare his Justice at this time to all beleevers in all the Nations of the world that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus by forgiving their sins and not remembring their iniquities Heb. 8 12. See Ains also in Psal 25. 11. and therefore Christ did now send abroad his Apostles to beseech men to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Secondly I find that Dr. Hamon and others doth thus paraphrase upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just in Mat. 1. 19. Joseph being a just man that is saith he being a merciful pious man was not willing to expose or subject Mary to the publick and shameful punishment which among the Jews belonged to those women whom the Husbands when they first came to them found not to bee Virgins was willing secretly to dismis her that she not being known to be betrothed to him might only be liable to the punishment of Fornication viz. infamy not death And in his Annotations he saith thus The word Just in Greek is answerable to the Hebrew and signifies ordinarily works of Mercy and Charity of which when Maymonides sets down seven sorts or degrees the seventh is distinctly Righteousness or Justice and so Justice in Deut. 24. 13. both according to the context and the 70 is Mercy So when Rabbins say There are two Thrones the one of Judgement and the other of Mercy the latter is so stiled by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 4. 16. and so Psal 112. 9. he hath given to the poor and his righteousness i. e. his bounty to the poor So Isa 58. 7 8. and Mat. 6. 1. where the vulgar reading is justitiam and that for almes in that place Proportionable to these acceptions of the word saith he the righteousness of Joseph shall here signifie not strict legal Justice but peculiarly Goodness and Clemency in not bringing Mary to the capital punishment of stoning for her being with child according to the I aw in Deut. 22. but he thought to put her away privately and so to keep the betrothing private that so she might suffer no more but infamy for Fornication In this point of clemency is Josephs justice commendable But on Rom. 3. 26. he saith thus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just signifieth one that is merciful or charitable as hath been shewed on Mat. 1. 19. And accordingly it may be observed that the word seldom in these books of the New Testament if ever belongs or is applied to the act of vindicative Justice But as there in the case of Joseph who would not offer his wife to legal punishment and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous for the abating of the rigor of exact Law and bringing in moderation or equity or mercy instead of it Accordingly saith he it is here to be resolved That this phrase being used of God That God may be just or righteous it must be understood to denote his mercy and goodness and clemency in pardoning and forgiving sins that being the thing looked on in the many foregoing expressions as our being justified freely by his grace in ver 24. The propitiatory ver 25. Gods righteousness I. e. his mercifull dealing with men under the second Covenant Verse 25 26. the remission of sins and forbearance Verse 25. And saith he the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just or righteous being so commonly taken in the notion of mercifulness and so seldom in this of vindicative Justice there is no reason to interpret it thus in this place Though this of Dr. Hamon do not fully accord to my former interpretation of Gods righteousness yet his reasons are very solid to shew that Gods Justice here is not to be taken as Mr. Norton doth for vindicative Justice Fourthly It is observable that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just is often put for one that is pious and merciful So the 70 put one that is pious for Tzedec justice in Isa 24. 16. and so also the Hebrew word Chesed mercy is put for one that is pious and just and therefore the Seventy do often render it justice as in Gen. 19. 19. Gen. 20. 13. 21. 23. 24. 27. and in 49 see Ains 32. 10. Exod. 15. 13. 34. 7. Prov. 20. 28. Isa 63. 7. And the reason is plain because Justice moderated is Mercy And to this purpose also do our larger Annotations speak on Psal 22. 31. And saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 21. The demonstration of Gods revenging Justice springeth not from the necessity of his nature but from his voluntary disposition By these particulars I beleeve it will be evident to the Judicious that none of all the three Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his Assumption do prove it namely that Christ did satissie Gods Justice by suffering his vindicative Justice And therefore the point of satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue is sound and good still notwithstanding all that Mr. Norton hath said or can say against it SECT 2. Mr. Nortons Answer to the several Scriptures cited by the Dialogue to prove the question stated Examined The Dialogue saith thus in p. 2. Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole or in party yet I affirm that he suffered all things in all circumstances just according to the Predictions of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting in the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews That they bad killed the Prince of life as God before bad shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fulfilled it So Act. 3. 17 18. Mr. Norton doth Answer thus This may include saith he but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Reply 1. He should have shewed that this Scripture did certainly include that Christ did suffer from Gods wrath especially seeing it is cited for a proof of the Question stated but I have often shewed that God hath shewed from all his Prophets from Gen. 3. 15. that God appointed Satan to set all his Instruments on work to persecute Christ and to peirce him in the foot-foals with an ignominious and painful death as a Malefactor on the Cross to try if he could pervert him in the course of his obedience and so to hinder Christs death from being a perfect sacrifice by which means onely the Devils head-plot must be broken The second Scripture cited in the Dialogue is in Mat. 16. 21. Christ told his Disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mr. Norton Answers thus True Yet saith he Matthew doth there shew that he must not suffer the Wrath of God
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
on the head and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning and truly so hee was though I find him to be very much out of the way in some things But in vain doth Mr. Norton labour to make Grotius his abettor for surely there is no greater opposite to Mr. Nortons imputation than he is For Grotius saith thus Some evil is sometimes imposed upon one or some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault In his War Peace l 2 c. 112 p. 398. yet not so that the fault is the immediate cause of that action as to the right of doing He saith he who by occasion of anothers debt hath ingaged himself suffers evil Sponde Noxs praeste est But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise as hee who is become surety for a buyer is not properly bound by the bargain but by his promise So also hee who is bound for a Delinquent is not held by the delinquency but by his ingagement And hence it is that the evil to bee born by him receives its measure not from the fault of the other but from the power which himself had in promising Consequent whereunto is this according to the opinion which wee beleeve to be the Truer That no man can by his becoming surety lose his * Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes Vide Panormitan Rubri de side jussoribus nor for judicial corporal pains vide digest l. 2. tit it Si quis cautionibus lege quotiens And saith Mamony The Judges are warned that they take no ransom of the Murderer though he could give all the wealth in the world and though the avenger of blood should be willing to free him for the soul of him that is killed is not the possession of the avener of blood but the possession of the holy blessed God See Ains in Num. 35. 31. Ex. 21. 25. Lev 24. 19. Ps 49. 8. None have a true legal power over their own life but God and the Magistrate to whom God gives power over Delinquents life because we determine no man hath such right over his own life that hee can take it from himself or ingage it to bee taken away by another though the Ancient Romans and Greeks were of another minde in this matter But it seems the latter Romans saw the inconvenience of their Ancestors Customes and therefore they made other Laws in opposition thereto Vide Codic lib. 9. Tit. 47. de poenis lege Sancimus And saith Grotius in the next page what wee have said of life ought to bee understood of members too for a man hath not right over them but for the preservation of the body But saith he If exile or losse of mony were in the promise and by the others fault the forfeiture was made the Surety shall bear the losse which yet in him to speak exactly will not be a punishment c. Ibidem And saith he because Beasts are not properly guilty of a fault when a beast is put to death as in the Law of Moses for copulation with man Lev. 20. 15. that is not truly punishment but the use of mans dominion over the beast Then hee proceeds to shew in Chap. 113. that none is justly punished in propriety of speech for anothers fault None saith he that is free from the fault can bee punished for the fault of another because the obligation to punishment ariseth from merit and merit is personal having its original from the will that which nothing is more ours whence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in Chap. 78. hee doth distinguish upon the word punishment properly so called and improperly so called punishment in general saith he is the evil of passion which is inflicted for the evil of action To be kept from Assemblies or functions are not properly punishments although for a certain similitude and abusively they are so called Hierax defined Justice to bee an exacting of punishment from offenders And saith he punishment properly so named must be rendred to some * Vide codic l. 9. Tit. 74. de poenis lege Sancimus There the Emperors Arcadius and Honâ—rius say thus We appoint that punishment shall be there where the fault is let offences bind their committers and let no fear of punishment extend further than to such as are guilty of crime And to this purpose speaks P. Martyr in Jud. 2. Eze 18. 20. offence This is also noted by Austin All punishment saith he if it bee just is the punishment of sin and in Chap. 113. Grotius cites Austin thus God himself should be unjust if he should condemn any one guiltlesse Iob 34. 23. Ibidem God indeed threatens to punish the iniquities of the Fathers upon the children But saith hee hee hath a most full right of Dominion as over our goods so over our lives too being his gift which without any cause and at any time he can take away from any one at his pleasure But saith he men may not imitate that vengeance of God The reason is not alike because wee have said God without regard of the fault hath right over the life men have not but upon some great crime and such as is the persons own Wherefore that same Divine Law as it forbids Parents to be put to death for their children so it forbids children to be put to death for the deeds of their Parents which Law pious Kings have followed even in the case of Treason Deut. 24. 16. 2 King 14. 6. And saith he at ult An heir that is liable to others debts is not liable to the punishment of the deceased for though the heir doth bear the person of the deceased in respect of goods which are ingaged yet not in respect of merits which are properly personal From these speeches of Grotius it follows 1 That hee did beleeve it to be the truer opinion That no man can by his becoming Surety lose his life because no man hath right over his own life and therefore those humane exaples of taking away the life of Sureties for the faults of others though they passe for good justice in Mr. Nortons opinion yet not in Grotius opinion being rectified nor in the Scriptures and therefore Mr. Norton hath laboured in vain to make Grotius his abettor in this 2 Hence it follows that seeing Grotius held this as a principle that the obligation to punishment doth arise from merit and that merit is personal having its original from the will that hee could not hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was made legally guilty of our sins by Gods imputation 3 Hence it follows That the punishments that Christ suffered were not in true propriety of speaking legal punishments because true legal punishments must bee inflicted for personal faults and therefore hee could not hold that Christ suffered any punishments from Gods vindicative wrath 4 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered are
in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak Vau into Latine Dum and into English When he was in Bethany and When he was in an Agony and therefore by the like reason it may as well bee translated When hee was made a Curse for us 8 It seems to mee therefore that Mr. Norton doth find faulâ— with the Dialogue from no other cause but because the word When doth utterly spoyl the visage of the Argument for it is no way suitable to his typical sense on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend and therefore it is no marvel that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chsstisement in Isa 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him namely When he was wounded for our transgressions and when hee was bruised for our iniquities But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross then the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it for we cannot sind in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God and the torments of Hell are called Chastisements If Mr. Norton had not been transported with a high conceit of his own erronions Tenents he would never have stumbled so as he doth at the word When in the Dialogue But Mr. Norton goes on in page 93. to prove his minor by the causal particle For by which saith he the Apostle doth prove the foregoing part of the Text. Reply 3. But I demand which foregoing part of the Text doth Mr. Norton mean that the Apostle doth prove for I have formerly shewed that there are two distinct clauses in the former part of the verse 1 It is said That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 It is said That he was made a curse for us If hee mean it of both these clauses then I deny that the causal particle For was so intended by the Apostle for I have before shewed that the Apostle did intend it only to confirm the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death 2 Mr. Norton in page 94. proves his former exposition thus 〈◊〉 If those words in Gal. 3. 13. Cursed iâ— every one that hangs on a tree and that text in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree have both but one and the same sense Then saith hee what binders that the foregoing part of the verse namely Redemption c. Reply 4. What hinders saith Mr. Norton hee knows well that Interrogations are no Arguments to prove what hee affirms he should have proved his affirmative and not demanded the question What hinders Tâ—an which Inference saith he in page 94. what is more abominable the typical reason excepted of signifying or typisying Christ bearing the moral curse upon the tree Reply 5. The Reader must here take special notice that Mr. Norton doth lay the weight of all his Arguments on the typical sense but you shall see ere long that his typical sense drawn from Deut. 21. 23. will as much fail him as his typical sense of the Tree of life hath done as I have already shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and then all his Arguments that are built upon it will prove but groundless fantasies or to use his own language hee will put an abominable inference on the Apostle and on the Spirit of God speaking by him SECT II. But saith Mr. Norton in page 94. There can be no sufficient or probable reason given why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this special Curse Whence followed the defiling of the land in case the body continued unburied after Sun-set above all other capital sufferings And saith he in page 96. in case they be not buried before Sun-set they shall defâ—le the land And saith he in page 102. the principal scope of this text of Deut. 21. 23. is to give a Law concerning him that is hanged that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reason thereof annexed And in page 95. hee cites Junius to his typical exposition 1 I will give a reason why hanging on a tree is the greatest curse of all death And secondly that his not burial afore Sun-set doth not defile the whole land Reply 6. The Dialogue hath given a probable reason yea a certain reason why the Malefactor that was hanged upon a tree was infamed with a greater curse than any other Stoning to death was counted the heaviest kind of death of all deaths in relation to the infamy of hanging up the dead body to be gazed on for their greater reproach for the hanging of the dead body was usually annexed to stoning to death death 1 Saith the Dialogue in page 68. Not every sinner that deserved death by Thou the Sanhedrim is meant of this high degree of curse in their death but such sinners only as deserved to have their bodies hanged on a tree after they were stoned to death for God had given power to the Sanhedrim when they stoned Malefactors to death if the circumstances of their sin were of a high consideration to hang up their dead bodies on a tree for their greater reproach shame and ignominy and to be a spectacle to others as long as the Sun gave light but yet in any wise to bury him that day and thus Calvin on Deut. 21. 21. and Goodwin on Moses Rites and Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 21. 22. do accord with the Dialogue that hanging is for the greater curse after stoning to death 2 Saith the Dialogue the rebellious Son in Deut. 21. 21. is brought as an instance of this double punishment First He was stoned to death And then secondly His dead body was hanged on a tree to be gazed on for his further reproach and insamy and so for a higher degree of curse than his stoning to death was and from this particular instance Moses doth infer in vers 22. That if there be in a man that is to say in any other man besides the Rebellious Son a sin that is to say any other capital sin that is â—orthy of death that is to say of this double kind of death And Thou namely Thou the high Sanhedrim do hang him upon a tree that is to say after he hath been stoned to death his body shall not remain all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him that day because he had satisfied the curse of God 3 It is manifest That this kind of death was accounted not only of the Jews but of other Nations the most infamous of all kind of death Mâ—ses in Num. 25. 4. said Take the Princes and hang them up before the Sun The Seventy translate it make them open spectacles of shame for though other kinds of death were dreadful yet none so shameful as this kind of death and
testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as hee did I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal 22. 1. We further briefly say That Christ was pleased to yeeld to sense or feeling so far 1 That he might shew himself a perfect true man a thing not easily beleeved as appears by the multitude of Heresies about this matter that sprung up soon after the first plantation of the faith there being no greater evidence to ordinary judgement at least of his perfect humanity than his being subject to the common infirmities of men Secondly To keep us from fainting and despair in the greatest trials combats and afflictions whether spiritual or corporal when God seems to forget us And thirdly As for them that think unpassionateness the Aulus Gellius a known ancient Writer in his 19. book of Noctes Atticae ch 1. 12. greatest evidence of magnanimity I commend the Disputes of two famous Philosophers recorded by Aulus Gellius Thus far speaks the said Annotation Fourthly this is observable That though many Martyrs have through the grace of constancy undergone the pains of death with joy or with little sign of their natural fear of death When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason in Martyrs then no man can express what conflict there is between nature and death which conflict was not in Christ whiles they have had the use of their sanctified reason yet afterwards as soon as their torments have astonished nature and by that means deprived them of the use of their sanctified reason then the same soul that was so fearless at first doth begin to shew the terrors of nature at the dominion of death and then no man can express what conflicts of fear and horror there is in nature against death but the manner of Christs death was far otherwise for at the utmost point of death Christs humane nature did not conflict with fear and horror as all Martyrs do But hee expressed his natural fear and horror of death beforehand in the Garden as it were in private to three of his Disciples that they might record it as a proof of his true humane nature for he did manifest it First By his speeches before he prayed And secondly in the time of his prayers but not after his prayers there was no mention of any more fear for by his prayers he had obtained a confirmation of his nature against the fear of his ignominious usage and against the fear of death I say it once more that it may be the better marked that after his prayers hee never shewed any fear of death more yea when he was at the very point of death upon the Cross hee did not express any natural strugling or striving with the pangs of death for there was no pangs in his death because the formality of it was supernatural and therefore his nature was not now subject to strive with the pangs of death as nature doth in all Martyrs the formality of his death did far surpass the death of all Martyrs because he had obtained a deliverance and a confirmation from his natural fear of death by his strong crying prayers and tears in the Garden Heb. 5. 7. So that when hee came to breath out his soul in the open view of all men both of his persecutors and of his godly friends he did without Heb. 5. 7. any trembling or strugling of nature instantly and quietly breath out his soul by his own Priestly power even whiles hee was in strength of nature and this I hope is contrary to the course of nature in the death of all Martyrs And by this last act of Christ in his death he declared himself to be our Mediator in his death and to be our High-priest in his death and sacrifice Lord saith Cyprian thou didst profess thy self before thine Cyprian de Past Christi Apostles to be sorrowful unto death and for exceeding grief didst powre forth a bloody sweat But saith hee I admire thee O Lord that being once fastened to the Cross amidst the condemned to be now neither sorrowful nor fearful but despising the punishments with thy hands lifted up to triumph over Amaleck Here you see that Cyprians judgement was That Christ was neither sorrowful nor fearful for his death when he hung upon the Cross as hee was in the Garden and therefore hee held that Christ had overcome this fear and horror of death by his prayers in the Garden And secondly That in the Garden hee did powre forth a bloody sweat for fear of his bodily death Thirdly Hee held that Christ triumphed over Amaleck that is to say over Satan by his unconquerable patience on the Cross Conclusion from the Premises Hence it follows that the two reasons of the Dialogue afore cited stand stronger and firmer than they did notwithstanding Mr. Norton hath endeavoured to shake them to nothing by his windy reasoning But in Page 58. Mr. Norton doth vindicate Calvin from the Dialogue sense to his sense Reply 9. What the Dialogue cited out of Mr. Calvin touching Christs troubled fear of death where his words run without any mention of Hell-torments was at the first useful to me and I thought that the same speeches might bee of the like good use to others especially seeing the Dialogue doth annex unto the former speeches of Calvin his expressions of Christs troubled soul-sorrows for the death of Lazarus by his weeping and groaning in spirit and troubling himself Joh. 11. 33 35. In which soul-troubles so pathetically manifested no man can imagine that he suffered any thing in soul from Gods immediate wrath or from Hell-torments and therefore why should we not likewise expound his other soul-sorrows to be in relation to his ignominious and painful death But seeing Mr. Norton is not willing to accept his words as I cited them to the sense of the Dialogue let him take Mr. Calvin on his side the truth of the Dialogue I hope may stand well enough without him and in case hee shall except against any other that I have cited for illustration I shall not much pass as long as I cite the Scripture sense according to the Context But for all this it seems that Mr. Norton is not very well pleased with Mr. Calvins judgement for in page 61. Mr. Norton doth cite him on purpose to confute him Mr. Calvin saith hee doth affirm that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men But saith Mr. Norton because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ latter Writers chuse rather to say That he suffered the punishment of the Elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Reply 10. This distinction may please such as had rather take mans word without the Scripture sense than take the pains to dig out the true Scripture sense But I wonder what difference there is betwixt this speech of Calvin
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