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 prâ—dict 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 Theophâ—lus 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. â— 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 Dupless is in the Truenesse of Religion â—h 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 Chrys against Drunkards and of the Resurrection must look for a double resurrection Christ dyed but one kind of death therefore he rose but one kind of resurrection Adam saith he dyed body and soul First he dyed to sin And secondly to nature In what day soever ye eat of the Tree said God ye shall dye the death that very day did not Adam dye in which he did eat but he then dyed to sin and long after to nature The first is the death of the soul the other the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishment To us men there is a double death and therefore we must have a double resurrection To Christ there was but one kind of death for he sinned not and that one kind of death was for us he owed no kind of death for he was not subject to sin and so not to death In these words we see that Chrysostome held that Adam first dyed to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly to nature long after his death in sin This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true substance in the Dialogue in page 10. c. and from that Exposition I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead for our redemption and if this Exposition which I have now inlarged be sound and according to the Context as I beleeve it is then the inference that I made is right and good But I confesse that upon the receit of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition I was much staggered for as I remember he demanded this question By whose means was it that Adam dyed this spiritual death was it inflicted on him by God or rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a
Sam. 15. The time of the burial of the person hanged might be done after Sunset provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight p. 272 The latter Editions of King James 's Translation on Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions p. 273 The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day in which he was stoned to death was because his curse of infamy by hanging so long on a Tree by exemplary Justice had appeased Gods anger and so consequently because it had now removed the curse that else would have fallen on the land p. 275 The whole land might be defiled by the Judges negligence in suffering notorious sinners to go unpunished p. 277 The whole land was never defiled by any one Ceremonial sin p. 279 The rule of Gods relative Justice is his secret Will which is sometimes contrary to his revealed Will p. 281 37 100 183 The second death is defined by the Hebrew Doctors from whom that term is borrowed to be a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God p. 286 All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world that is to say both our spiritual death in original sin and our bodily death are altogether called and accounted both by ancient and later Divines the first death in relation to the term second death because that is only suffered in the world to come p. 287 Mr. Norton doth sometimes hold satisfaction to be made by Christs suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments in kind but at other times he doth hold an alteration to equivalency p. 291 72 107 113 CHAP. XVI CHrist did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not made subject to death by that curse in Gen. 3. 19. as the nature of all other men is p. 293 Christ did first effect his Combate with Satan in his human nature and then he did effect his sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures and all this according to his Covenant and therefore he was not made subject to death by Gods curse as ours is p. 293 297 308 and p. 9 The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of shame fear and pain than other men can be p. 294 Christ feared his ignominious death after the rule of fear and not after the example of this or that man p. 295 Christs doath was not a natural but a supernatural death p. 296 333 * Add this Note to p. 297 at line 1. and also to p. 9. and p. 293. The death of Christ was effected according to the Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son * Add this Marginal Note to p. 298. Christ did not pray to escape death but only that his humane nature might bee confirmed against his natural fear of death and so saith Trap Heb. 5. 7. hee was heard in that hee feared that is saith he he was delivered from his fear for no sooner had he prayed but he met his enemies and said Whom seek yee I am he p. 298. Christ did voluntarily take our passions to him as they were a punishment inflicted on mankind for Adams sin p. 300 Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ p. 300 152 If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to dye that they have from otherwhere and not from the nature of death p. 301 When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason then no man can express what conflict there is between their nature and death the destroyer thereof which conflict was not in Christ p. 302 Mr. Norton doth in p. 153. most dangerously affirm That Christ suffered a twofold death namely not only a bodily death but also that God inflicted a spiritual death upon his immortal soul which he doth also affirm to be the second death p. 307 315 The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity p. 308 9 122 130 All the sufferings of Christ were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice p. 309 The Sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of his death which himself effected by his own Priestly power namely by the actual power and joynt concurrence of both his natures p. 309 315 145 God did all the external sufferings of Christ by giving license to Satan and his instruments to do them and God did all Christs internal soul-sufferings by appointing Christ to assume our true humane nature and affections and to use them at his own will and pleasure more or less as objects did present p. 311 178 Ch. 17 There is a sympathy between soul and body in sufferings p. 313 The sufferings of Christs soul in Matth. 26. 38. and in Isaiah 53. 10. must be understood chiefly of Christs vital soul and not of his immortal soul p. 314 Satisfaction was made by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death as Mr. Norton doth 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 Hereâ—nus 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 yeâ— 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 cast 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 extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cros p. 346 Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature but in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities of sorrow and fear at his appoaching ignominious death p. 353 Some expressions of the Ancient Divines do cleerly evidence that they could not hold any such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton doth p. 356 * Some few of the Hebrew Doctors writings yet extant do speak of the sufferings of Christ from Satans enmity p. 357 at line 16. Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death in sin and then our spiritual death in sin was the meritorious cause of Gods justice first in denouncing our bodily death and secondly in denouncing a judgement to follow to each departed soul p. 357 The Pelagians cannot be convinced That original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that God threatned a bodily death in Gen 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin p. 358 Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath though in that nature he was able to conflict with Satan and his instruments p. 359 If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton doth affirm then it must needs be a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it p. 361 CHAP. XVII THe Hebrew word Azab hath not two contrary significations as Mr. Norton doth affirm to amuse his Reader about the manner of Gods forsaking Christ upon the Cross p. 371 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastifement p. 375 169 Our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane Ratiocination which saith the Annotation is but meer folly and madness p. 377 God forsook Christ on the Cross because he did not then protect him against the Powers of darkness as he had done very often in former times p. 379 One main reason why God forsook the Humane nature of Christ upon the cross was that so his Humane nature might be the more tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities in all the afflictions that were written of him p. 383 174 The Humane nature was no true part of the divine person but an appendix onely p. 387 * Add this Note to the marginal Note in p. 387. Zanchy in his sixth and seventh Aphorismes to the confession of his faith p. 280. saith That the Humane nature was no true part of the person of Christ and saith he in his twelfth Aphorism at 4. Though the nature taken to speak properly is not a part of his person yet at 5. he saith It is acknowledged to be as it were a part of the person of Christ because without it we cannot define what Christ is and because of them both there is but one and the same Hypostasie Though the Humane nature of Christ ever had its dependance and subsistence in the divine after the union yet such was the singleness and the unmixedness of the divine nature in this union that it could leave the Humane nature to act of it self according to its own natural principles p 388 * Add this Note to p. 389. at line 6. In two things saith Pareus this similitude of Athanasius doth not agree and before him Zanchy said as much for in his sixth Aphorism he saith It is freely confessed by Justinus and by other Fathers that this similitude doth not agree in all things to this great mystery * The Geneva Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth say That Christ was in a horrible conflict between Faith and Desperation and so by necessary consequence it makes Christ to be a true inherent sinner and this blasphemous Note hath been printed and dispersed in many thousand copies and yet where is the Boaâ—erges to be found that hath vindicated Christ from this dangerous Tenent p. 393. God did not so forsake the soul of Christ on the cross as to deprive him of the sweet sense of the good of the Promises as Mr. Norton bolds most dangerously p. 394 Christ was often his owne voluntary afflicter with Soul-sorrows p. 404 178 Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice But yet it doth not thence follow that he was his own Executioner or Self murderer as Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly thence infer p. 405 No full satisfaction could be made by any thing that Christ suffered before his bodily death was compleated because therein onely lay the formality of his sacrifice withouâ— which no full satisfaction could be made p. 415 309 79. 145 315 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth make Christ to die formally under the sense of the wrath of God for full satisfaction but at other times he doth cross that and makes satisfaction to be fully compleated before hee suffered his natural death So uncertain hee is in his foundation-Principles touching Christs satisfaction p. 416 There was a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and the manner of Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect p. 417 * Add this Note to p. 417. Mr. Weams on the Judicial Laws p. 78. doth observe that though Peter said to Christ in Joh. 13. 37. Lord I will lay down my life for thy sake yet Christ that knew his natural unwillingness better than himself told him afterwards that another shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not so that in the conclusion when Peter came indeed to dye for Christ he was partly willing and partly unwilling Ioh. 21. 18. which kind of unwillingness was not in Christ at his death because he had by his prayers in the Garden obtained a confirmation against his naturall fear of death when hee came to dye on the cross Therefore Mr. Norton doth deale very unadvisedly to compare the manner of Peters laying downe his life with the manner of Christs laying downe his life for
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 But 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 out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premises 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he
single person Willet in Rom. 5. Q 19. sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he The other 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 inflicted 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 our 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 aâ—d so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his created 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 signifed 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 See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Grotius Camero Bro. 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 continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it pleased God also in a short time after to Relax the rigor and outrage of this spiritual death to all mankind in general in this life All the glory of Gods câ—eation had been confounded at the time of Adams fall if Christ had not been foreorâ—ained to be ready at hand to take on him the Government of all And secondly to alter it much more to the Elect for God had ordained that his Son Jesus Christ should be the Heir of all things as soon as ever Adam fell and that he should at the instant of Adams fall take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation now in rebellion and confusion by Adams fall and that he should uphold all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3. and in a special manner should rule over mans corruption and Sathans malice or else if Christ had not been provided in Gods eternal Counsel and Providence in a readinesse to undertake the Government of all this in this point of time no man can imagine what a hell would have been here on earth through mans spiritual death
in sin and Sathans malice if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government And secondly It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam and all his elect posterity from this desperate Head-plot of Sathan and from this miserable death of sin thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure or else if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence there had been no room left for the manifestation of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed for till the time of Gods gracious manifestation Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of Gods vindicative threatning but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him there-from for God said thus by way of threatning to the devil The Seed of that Woman whom thou hast deceived shall break thy Head-plot by his death and sacrifice and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to peirce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his patience nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice and by this means shall thy cunning Head-plot be broken in peeces and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken Now to bring this work of Redemption to passe a double change must be wrought in fallen man by the Mediation of this Promised Seed 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration 2 A change of our present state from being the children of wrath by nature to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption 1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration 1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good which is done but in part whiles we live in this world through the Word and Spirit For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration as I said is done but in part for as long as we live in this world this body of sin doth still in part remain and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here 2 The full degree of our Regeneration is not till the day of the general Resurrection and then all those that have been in part regenerated here shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here to fit them for that full Regeneration for without such a change of our corrupt nature by death flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption 1 Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect saith Christopher Carlisle the Resurrection is called by Christ A Regeneration a new Birth a Renovation a In his Treatise of Christs descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead a Restitution from above Matth. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate and in part sanctified here must suffer a bodily death that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body as well as in soul and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality 1 Cor. 15 53. Ph. 3. 21. Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in ordaining a bodily death for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after namely in vers 19. which is but four verses after the promise tell beleeving Adam as he was the head of mans corrupt nature in general Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return And thus from the order of time when this threatning was denounced It follows 1 That a bodily death was not denounced untill after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break the Devils Head-plot by purchasing a new Nature and a new Paradise for Adam and as many else of his posterity as did beleeve in the Promised Seed but this threatning of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and dye in the unbeleef of the Promised Seed for when God did first appoint a bodily death he did then also appoint a day of Judgement as Heb. 9. 27. doth expound the threatning in Gen. 3. 19. 2 This is also worthy of all due consideration That this bodily death was not threatned to be formally executed in the day of Adams sinful eating as death in sin was 3 Neither was a bodily death threatned to be formally executed on any certain day afterwards 4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death after this time but upon the committing of such and such sins he did still from time to time threaten a bodily death But after the first threatning of a spiritual death in sin God did never threaten that death any more he did but once threaten that death and but once execute it 5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to beleeving Adam he adjudged him and all his beleeving posterity no further then their bodies to the earth whence Christ should one day raise them and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption but he adjudged his unbeleeving seed not only to a bodily but also to an eternal death in hell 6 From this appoinment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. and not 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. 14. 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 his original sin was a
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. 1. 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 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
an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal deâ—th it is from Gâ—ds justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in Ro. 5 Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment Gâ—d as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiah teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3 ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar. l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Pigghius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christs suffering of the essential curse Reason I. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods impuration and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God hath highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Justice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditional promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in Chap. 2. And this forgivenesse both as it relates to his Covenant with Christ and to his new Covenant with the Elect is called Gods Righteousnesse in Rom. 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. for God must needs be as just and righteous when he performs his Covenant of Forgivenesse made first to Christ in reference to his satisfaction and so made also to all the members of his new Covenant As when he doth execute his vindicative threatnings upon the impenitent and therefore such poor humble sinners may by faith call upon God to make them partakers of his Righteousnesse namely of his gracious forgivenesse This Exposition How God is just hath a more firm foundation in this Text of 1 Joh. 1. 9. than Mr. Nortons Exposition hath The Examination of Rom. 3. 26. To declare at this time his Righteousnesse or his Justice That Rom. 3 26. hee might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus This Text Mr. Norton doth put both in the Frontispiece and also in the conclusion of his book and he doth repeat it sundry other times also in his book as
27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this Text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. 1 Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may
see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 1â— It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 Heb. 9. 27 28 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these three Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numeriee and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would sain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not
desert of sin But suppose that God doth in some cases inflict punishments immediately on some mens souls by his supreme power without respect of sin yet that doth not answer to the Proposition of the Dialogue for the Dialogue doth not speak of mens souls but of Christs soul The Dialogue saith That Christs soul is not capable of bearing wounds from Gods immediate wrath But all Mr. Nortons proofs are of mens souls that are sinners But saith Mr. Norton in page 38. Sathan being a spirit may have access unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5. 5. Eph. 2. 12. 16. Reply 7. What though Sathan may afflict the spirit of a sinner yet still that doth not prove his Proposition which hee undertook to make good namely That God from his immediate wrath did afflict the spirit of Christ But saith Mr. Norton If Sathan cannot yet God can Reply 8. What God can do is one thing and what God did to the soul of Christ is another thing But still his Proposition to be proved is That God did inflict his immediate wrath upon the soul of Christ without any second means 2 For a more full answer to both the former speeches of In his Child of Light p. 52 53. 120. Mr. Norton I shall refer you to Mr. Thomas Goodwin hee saith that the soul of Adam in his innocency and the soul of Christ were privileged from all inward suggestions from Sathan and that Sathan could tempt them no otherwise but by his outward temptations only And I find other Divines to accord with him 3 He sheweth also that God doth not torment the souls of the damned by his immediate wrath but by second means For saith hee though God is to be feared because hee only can cast both body and soul into hell Yet saith hee this is not meant as if God were the immediate Tormentor of souls after the great day seeing they are to bee tormented by that fire which God hath prepared in common for them and the Devils 4 P. Martyr in his Com. pl. part 4. pag. 314. saith It is the property of God to command and not to execute things commanded And saith Baxter in his Saints Rest page 275. God afflicts mens souls not immediately but by instruments But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53. 10. When thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding Mat. 26. 38. sorrowful to the death Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. His great heaviness sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of blood Mar. 14. 33. Luke 22. 44. cannot bee looked at in a person that was Luke 22. 44. God and man as less than the effects of Soul-sorrows Hell-sorrows Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell Reply 9. I have shewed in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 16. Sect. 3. That the soul of Christ in these places quoted by Mr. Norton are meant of his vital soul and not of his immortal soul 2 That Christ himself was his own Afflicter with soul-sorrows Chap. 16. Sect. 2. and Chap. 17. Sect. 4. Reply 15. 3 When all these cited Scriptures are put together they prove no more but this that Christ suffered much in his soul as well as in his body But where doth any of them say That his soul-sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath without any second means which is the very point that Mr. Norton undertook to make good But saith hee His great heavinesse sore amazement and sweat as it were great drops of blood cannot bee looked at in a person that was both God and man as lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows c. Reply 10. Doth not Mr. Norton hold forth in these words that the humane nature of Christ was a true part of his divine person why else doth he say That his great heavinesse sore Christs humane nature was often purposely left of the divine nature that so it might be touched with the sense of our infirmities more than ours can be amazement c. cannot be looked at in a person that was God and man as lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows as if Christs humane nature was not able to bear these sorrows without the powerful assistance of his divine nature It seems to mee he thinks that his Godhead by vertue of personal union did alwaies co-operate to the assisting of his humane nature to undergo his soul-sorrows as our bodies are holpen to bear our sufferings by our souls by reason of personal union But I shall joyn with those Divines that reason contrary for both ancient and latter Divines do often say That his divine nature did often rest that so his humane nature might bee touched with the feeling of our infirmities and this the divine nature might do because the humane nature was no true part of his divine person as our souls are to make our bodies a person but an Appendix only The union of his humane nature to his divine person was such an ineffable union that it cannot bee exemplified by any other union whatsoever Indeed if his humane nature had been a true part of his divine person as our souls are of our persons then it must have holpen his humane nature to bear his sorrows but I think it is no lesse than heresie to hold so but because it was but an Appendix to his divine person therefore the divine nature could put out his power to leave the humane nature to its self and to its own qualifications to bee touched to the utmost with thâ—â— sensible feeling of our infirmities and therefore I say That the perfections of his humane nature and the unction of the holy Spirit at his instalment was sufficient to support him and to regulate his soul-sorrows without the co-operation of 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 hee 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
53. 6. was after the same manner as the Lord laid the sins of Israel upon the Priest and Sacrifice and no otherwise as in Exod. 28. 38. and in Lev. 10. 17. Mr. Norton doth answer in page 43. Whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is That the Types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin to Christ the Antitype Reply 1. The meaning of the Dialogue is plain namely that Christ bare our sins as the typical Priest and Sacrifice did bear the sins of Israel And the Priests are said to bear all their sins because they offered publick sacrifices to procure a legal Attonement for the sins of all Israel and so Christ bare our sins because hee made his soul a Sacrifice by his Priestly power by which he procured his Fathers Attonement for all our sins formally 2 In the Dialogue in page 25. I have shewed how Christ may be said to bear our sins several other wayes and yet not as a guilty sinner by a formal legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. Put case you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Reply 2. The Dialogues instances do make it appear plain enough to the willing to bee informed That the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended but to a byassed spirit it is not easie to be done Let the Reader peruse the Dialogue and then judge But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice Isa 53. 12. Therefore say we by Imputation Reply 3. He doth acknowledge it to bee a truth that God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice therefore say wee not by Mr. Nortons kind of imputation for his kind of imputation is not to be found in the typical sacrifices but the true manner of Christs bearing our sins as our Priestly Mediator may be found because it was typified by the Priests eating of the peoples Sin-offering as Mediators in the holy place as the Dialogue hath truly expounded Lev. 10. 17. for their eating signified such a communion as Mediators must have between both parties in the work of Attonement And secondly The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah Hee poured out his soul to death and bare the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors Isa 53. 12. All these three terms saith the Dialogue are Synonima's But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sin and intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concur as ingredients to the same Mediatorship Reply 4. I cannot find any thing in this answer to confute the Synonimas expressed by the Dialogue I think this answer is meerly intended to amuse the Reader The Dialogue shews plainly that all these three terms are metaphorical Synonimas being all joyned together in this Text to declare unto us the true manner how the Lord made Christ to bear all our sins as our Sacrifice 1 His death is put for his sacrifice 2 His sacrifice bears all our sins from us because it procures Gods Attonement 3 By the eternal efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice he makes continual intercession for us and so hee doth still bear our sins by his continual interceding Gods Attonement And thus all these terms are Synonimas and to this I shall speak more fully in Reply 18. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The force of this Reason is that Christs sacrifice was effectual to procure Attonement therefore sin was not imputed to him A meer non sequitur Nay the contrary consequence is true Christ saith hee appeared that is Was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9. 26. was once offered to bear the sins of the many verse 28. The Greek word here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2. 24. signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away and this is an allusion to the Rite of the whole Burnt-offering Reply 5. In this Answer Mr. Norton labors to prove that Christ bare our sins by Gods imputation by Heb. 9. 26. 28. Heb. 9. 26. 28 Christ appeared that is saith he was manifested in the flesh hee little minded the Context in saying that his appearing here did signifie his manifesting in the flesh for it is easie to bee discerned that his appearing here doth signifie his appearing before Dan. 9. 24. God with his sacrifice for sin and that was three and thirty yeers after his first appearing in the flesh as I noted Christ put away sin namely all Sin offerings by his being made the only true Sacrifice for sin from his approaching unto God in the beginning of this Chapter by which hee put away sin namely all Sin-offerings according to that in Dan. 9. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish Trespasse offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity as the meritorious cause and so to bring in an everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial as our money brings in our cloathing and then it follows in Pauls next words That Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many this Greek word to bear here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter saith Mr. Norton signifies to take carty or bear up on high and that so as to bear away now apply his Rule in page 44. to what he saith here and there hee answers himself to what hee reasons here Put case saith he you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing So say I of this Text of Heb. 9. 28. except Mr. Norton can make it appear That the manner of Christs bearing our sins was fully intended by this Text to be by Gods legal imputation he concludes nothing he saith that the Greek word here for bearing and in 1 Pet. 2 24. is the same I grant it but yet it hath a several sense in those two places as I have shewed in the Dialogue 1 I have shewed that Christ in his conflict with Sathan bare our sins as a Porter bears a burthen as it is in 1 Pet. 2. 24. according to Gen. 3. 15. But secondly In Heb. 9. 24. Hee bears our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice when hee died formally by his own Priestly power by this sacrifice hee procured Gods Attonement by which our sins are formally born away from us And saith the Apostle Vnto them that look for him shall hee appear the second time without sin unto salvation namely Hee shall appear the second time without being made
both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture Reply 9. It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would perswade his Reader it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption First I doe not finde that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments or the second death It is objected saith Peter Martyr that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9. 1. 2. in p. 240. did not onely give his life upon the cross but also that he was made a curse and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And after a short Answer to another Objection he Answers thus The second doubt saith he is concerning Christ for although he for our sakes suffered death yet was he not in very deed separated from God but his humanity was holpen when he suffered on the cross all extream pains he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake and he was counted as a blasphemer c and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree he was made a curse saith he as touching the punishment of the Law in Deut. 21. 23. and saith he he was counted as a Blasphemer and an ungodly person and being as iâ— were convicted of these crimes he was condemned but yet was he not by eternal damnation namely by suffering that which to the creature is eternal damnation separated from God By this answer it is evident That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree just as Chrisostom and Theophilact spake as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said ere while that his exposition was generally received but here he may see two of the antient Divines and Peter Martyr cited against him and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth Fourthly Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other penal hel or infernum but his bodily death as I have cited him in Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly I have also diligently perused all Tindals works and the works of Jo. Frith and of Dr. Barns being three godly Martyrs and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction and by occasion thereof they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons sense of Hell torments but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice Sixthly I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. Nortons Tenent of Hell Torments But I have not throughly searched them but in a great part I have and can find no such thing in them Let them that please search them fully Seventhly Mr. Broughton and his followers which to this day are many that are both pious and learned and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross as no Article of their faith I will cite onely two passages out of Mr. Broughton besides what I have cited in the Dialogue 1 Saith he That assertion that our Lord suffered Hell Torments In his positions on Hades p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture true modesty saith he would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption 2 Saith he to say that our Lords soul tasted the second death is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22 25. saith he in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalips is taken from the Thalmudistes and therefore by them it must be expounded And in their sense saith he it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God and agreeable to this I have shewed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa 22. and Rabbins infinitely But saith Mr. Norton to avoid manifest blasphemy Christ was never in Gods hatred Therefore he might as well conclude that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell nor the second Death seeing they are not inflicted without Gods hatred And saith Bro. in Revel p. 301. N. N. missed most Atheanly more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam to say that our Lord was in the second Death 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith the Chalde doth thus expound it Let Ruben not die the second death And saith he Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus Let Ruben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall dye in the world to come And saith he in Psal 49. 11. The Chalde saith That wicked wise men die the second death and are adjudged to Gehenna And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat of Repentance c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith And this is the cutting off written in the Law as it is said in Numb 15. 31. That soul shall be cut off he shall be cut off which we have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just â—s the Dialogue doth as I have
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 iâ— 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 sully deny the spiritual death of Christs immortal soul and therefore he is point blank against Mr. Norton Eleventhly Cyril de Recta fide 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 Quadragesuna 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 Numb 35. 25. makes the reason of the type to be the more eminent because in 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 See Carlile in his descent p. 144 c. death I will out of Christopher Carlile describe the vital soul 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 affâ—ctions 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 affections either of joy or sorrow as in Psal 25. 1. it is put for cheerful affections See Ainsworth there and in Psal 86. 4. It is also put for the affections of compassion in Isa 58. 10. It is also put for the affections of sorrow and sadness 1 Sam. 1. 15. Psal 42. 5. Psal 62. 9. Lam. 2. 12. It is also put for vexation of mind Deut. 28. 65. It is also put for the grief and pain which they sustained in captivity as it is expounded in vers 64. 66. and 2 King 4. 27. Job 7. 11. Job 10. 1. Psal 13. 2. It is also put for the inward powers Job 21. 23. Psal 107. 26. Prov. 14. 1. Likewise in the New Testament Psyche the vital soul is put 1 For a willing heart Eph. 66. Col. 3. 23. 2 For one mind Act. 4. 31. Phi. 1. 27. 3 For the heart soul and mind Matth. 22. 37. Toto tuo sensitivo as Lyra interpreteth with all thy wisdome diligence and cogitation as Chrysostome with all thy life and with all thy mind as Austin with all thy will and mind as Glossa ordinaria with all thy life which thou oughtest
and all his Instruments by his righteousness in managing the combate according to the just laws of the combate for the Devil could not by all his stratagems prevail to make him a Transgressor and therefore he could not prevail to put him to death formally by forcing his vital soul out of his body by all his torments and this is evident because Gods Justice had not ordained any thing else but sin onely to be the sting of death and therefore unless Satan could have so far prevailed as to make him a guilty sinner he could not sting him to death formally but himself was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and therefore when he was in strength of nature he did but say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and then at that instant he gave up the Ghost and that last act being done according to Covenant gave the formality 1. To his Obedience 2. To his Death 3. To his Sacrifice And 4. To the full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans redemption And thus the seed of the woman conquered Satan broke his first grand Head-plot by his weapon of righteousness and won the prize 5 This is no new upstart doctrine that Christ conquered Satan by righteousness in observing the Laws of the combate and by entering the Lists with the infirmities of his humane nature which was most eminently shewed both in his internal and external agony but this doctrine hath been taught by the antient Divines for 1 Christ was made man saith Damasen that so that which Ortho. Fidei l. 3. c. 18. was conquered might conquer God was not unable saith he by his mighty force and power to take man from the Tyrant but then that would have been a cause of complaint to the Tyrant that had conquered man if he had been forced by the power of God therefore God who pittied and loved us willing to make man that was fallen the conqueror of Satan became man restoring the like by the like 2 Gregory saith When Satan took Christs body to In moraâ—iam l. 3. c. 11. crucifie it hee lost Christs Elect from the right of his power Ibidem From Gods speech to Satan concerning Job He is in thy hand but save his life he doth thus declare Gods commission to Satan touching Christ Take thou power against his body and loose the right of thy dominion over his Elect 3 Saith Ireneus Christ coupled and united man to God for Iren. l. 3. c. 20. if man had not vanquished the enemy of man the enemy had not been justly vanquished 4 Leo saith If the God-head onely should have opposed it De passi Dom. Ser. 5. self for sinners not so much reason aâ— power should have conquered the Devil Ibidem The son of God therefore admitted wicked hands to be laid upon him and what the rage of persecutors offered he with patient power suffered This saith he was the great mystery of godliness that Christ was even loaden with injuries which if he should have repelled with open power he should have onely exercised his divine strength but not regarded our cause that were men for in all things which the madness of the people and Priests did reproachfully unto him our sins were wiped away and our offences purged as Isa 53. 5. The Devil himself saith he did not understand that his cruelty against Christ should overthrow his Kingdom He should not saith he have lost the right of his fraud if he could but have abstained from the Lords blood but greedy with malice to hurt whiles he rusheth on Christ himself falleth whilst he taketh he is taken and pursuing him that was mortal he lighted on the Saviour of the world And saith he in Ser. 10. Jesus Christ being lifted on the tree returned death on the Author of death Heb. 2 14. and strangled all the principalities and powers that were against him by objecting his flesh that was passable and giving place in himself to the presumption of our antient enemy who raging against mans nature that was subject unto him durst there exact his debt where he could find no a These letters a b c d do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds sign of sin therefore the general and mortal hand-writing by which we were sold was torn and the contract of our captivity came into the power of the redeemer And saith he in Serm. 12. To destroy the Kingdom of the Devil he rather used the righteousness of Reason than the power of his Might for whilst the Devil raged on him whom he held by no b These letters a b c d do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds Law of sin he lost the right of his wicked dominion Hence I infer If the Devil did afflict him by no Law of sin then he was not a sinner by Gods legal imputation 5. Theoderet saith Because thou who receivedst power against De Providen Ser. 10. sinners hast touched my body that am c These letters a b c d do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds guilty of no sin forfeit thy power and cease thy Tyranny I will free mine from death not using simply the power of a Lord but a righteous power I have paid the debt of mankind owing no death I have suffered death and not subject to death and did admit death no way d These letters a b c d do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds guilty I was reckoned with the guilty and being free from debt I was numbered among the debtors sustaining therefore an unjust death I dissolve the death that is deserved and imprisoned wrongfully I free them from prison that were justly detained Ibidem saith he Let no man think that herein we dally for by the sacred Gospels and Doctrines of the Apostles we are taught that these things are so And saith Leâ— de passi Dom. Ser. 17. He that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would 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. Wotton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatoris 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
the Grace of Joy in the good of Gods promises for that is one of the Graces Gal. 5. no not then when his sufferings were most grievous to his flesh his Joy in the apprehension of Gods Fatherly love in his promises was not then interrupted and therefore out of that his never interrupted apprehension or rather joyful view of the light of Gods countenance and of the good of his promises he like a conquering Combater indured the cross and dispised the shame Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christs soul was as full of Grace as the Sun is full of light without any eclipse and as full of Grace as the Sea is full of water without any ebb as it is acknowledged by almost all Divines how can it be true which Mr. Norton affirms that he was in the spiritual death of his soul when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For where there is any true Grace there the soul is spiritually made alive and therefore true Grace is called the Grace of life 1 Pet. 3. 7. where the Spirit of God abides there the soul is in life and therefore the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Life Rom. 8. 2. and therefore Christ could not be in the spiritual death of his soul because he always had the Spirit of Grace in him above measure Abominable then to God must that doctrine needs be which Mr. Norton hath published that makes Christs soul to be under the power of a spiritual death Some learned Divines do say That none can die the second spiritual death in soul before they die the first death in sin therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity that makes Christs soul to be spiritually dead under the pain of loss and sense for by that Doctrine he doth also necessarily make him to be devoid of all Grace and so consequently to be spiritually dead in sin which is horrible blasphemy 2 His Tenent in making Christs soul to be without the comfort of a promise at the very instant when he made his soul a sacrifice doth make Christ to be a blemished Priest and so consequently it makes his death and sacrifice to be an abomination to God for a Priest that is a mourner in soul is a blemished Priest therefore a Priest must not be a mourner in soul at the time of offering any sacrifice Lev. 10. 19. 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring Gods Reconciliation and Gods Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoycing Num. 12. 14. Lev. 10. 19 20. Deut. 16. 11 15. Neh. 8. 9. doubtless therefore all Christs soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satans ill usage was fully over as soon as he had done his prayers in the Garden and yet I grant also that when he hung upon the Cross he was under most grievous tortures and pains to his sences but yet I say also that those pains born with perfect patience did not hinder the sweet sense of his inward joy that had both conquered Satan and made reconciliation with God and that now had recovered the Elect and so had divided the spoil with the strong adversary Satan which act of dividing the spoil is always done with joy 1 Sam. 30. 26. Heb. 1â— 2. Isa 9. 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa 53. 12. I will divide saith God and he shall divide the spoyl with the strong 7 Take Mr. Nortons words into consideration in p. 89. Christ saith he knew that God was his Mat. 27. 46. fully understood the glory of the blessed and that his soul presently upon his dissolution should be in Paradice Luk. 23. 43. Doth not Mr. Norton in these words prove that Christ was not totally deprived of the sense of the goods of the promises For now in his greatest torments on the Cross he saith he promised paradise to himself as well as to the penitent theef and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion SECT 4. Secondly I come now to shew that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross in the formality of his death Reply 15. I Grant that God by his declared permission to Satan in Gen. 3. 15. did allow him so much power as to pierce Christ in the foot-soals namely to crucifie him as a sinful malefactor with the soars of death just like to other malefactors that were formally killed thereby But yet for all this I say also that God did not give the Devil so much power as to put Christ to death formally because he had ordained Christ to have a Priestly power in the formality of his death by his unchangeable oath to the end that he might make his death a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to Covenant But in case he had been put to death formally by the power of Satan and his Instruments then his death could not have been a sacrifice unless he will say that God ordained the Devil to be a Priest it could have been no more but a death of Martyrdom But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin Reply 16. In this speech M. Norton doth much wrong the sense of the blessed Scriptures for in Joh. 10. 17 18. Christ saith This commandement have I received of my Father to let none take away my life from me formally but to lay it down or as Tendal translates it to put it from me of my self Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christs death and the death of all other men as I shall more at large expounded this Scripture by and by 2 His death is called a sacrifice and none could make it to be a sacrifice but such a Priest as was called of God to be the Priest and no other act could make it to be a sacrifice but such an act of such a Priest as did formally take away the life of the sacrifice Therefore he must be the onely Priest in the formality of his own death Heb. 9. 26 28. 10. 12. and no other mans death is called a sacrifice formally but his 3 All other men die by co-action because they are sinners in Adam but Christ was no sinner therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court-Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put
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 quomâ—do 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 standers 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 streightway 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 as 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 be cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Here find we manifest Arguments of his Divinity which the Centurion and others observed as some of the Evangelists witness 1 That cry and distinct pronouncing of his last words sheweth a power and vertue more than humane for we know that men dying so faint that most of them cannot speak be it never so softly 2 He dieth when he will of himself yea and layeth off his soul with authority to shew himself Lord of life and death which is an evident proof of his divine power 21 Marlorat on these words in Matth. 27. Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his spirit saith Christ declareth his Majesty in that he layeth down his soul not when men constrain him but when himself will whereupon Pilat marvelled that Christ was so soon dead and the Lord himself said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it again to which it appertaineth that is written he bowing his head gave up his spirit For other men first die and then their heads hang but Christ first laid down his head and then voluntarily rendred his soul into the hands of his father 22 Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue pag. 101. speaks pertinently to the judgements of these Divines and cites Austin concurring with him 23 Mr. John Smith of Clavering in his grounds of Religion pag. 59. asketh this Question How did Christ die Ans He dyed not with extremity of pain as others do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as
A Farther Discussion OF THAT Great Point in DIVINITY the Sufferings of Christ AND The Questions about his Righteousnesse Active Passive and the Imputation thereof BEING A Vindication of a Dialogue Intituled The Meritorious Price of our Redemption Justification c. from â—he exceptions of Mr. Norton and others By WILLIAM PYNCHON late of New England LONDON Printed for the Author and are to bee sold at the Signe of the three Lyons in Corn-hill over against the Conduit MDCLV To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-soals for a sinful Malefactor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this â—â—ed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before-hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be reconciled to the Elect and receive them again into special favor as Sons by Adoption A learned Divine saith thus The fundamental grounds of Christianity do inforce us to grant That in the Divine nature though most indivisibly one there is an eminent Ideal pattern of such a distinction as we call between party and party a capacity to give and a capacity to receive a capacity to demand and a capacity to satisfie c. 5 From this eternal Decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son doth result the New Covenant with the Elect For it pleased them to agree That all the Articles of the New Covenant should be ratified and confirmed to the Elect by the death of Christ and from that confirmation by his death It is now stiled the New Testament Heb. 9. 15 16. 6 Presently after the Declaration of the said Enmity and Combate in Gen. 3. 15. namely in verse 19. It pleased God further to declare the Council of his will to fallen but now also converted Adam That he should return to the dust whence he was taken Gen. 3. 19. And this is also further to be noted That God denounced this judicial sentence of a bodily death on him as a just punishment for his original spiritual death in sin and this is also further evident by Rom. 5. 12. And secondly The Apostle doth also further tell us That when God appointed a bodily death to Adams sinful nature that he also did at the very same time appoint a judgement for each departed soul Heb. 9. 27. namely First That such as dyed in the faith of their Redemption by the seed of the woman
by them that hold such received errors when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes for in Mark 1. 27. they said What new doctrine is this But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is To make a thorow search into what both sides say and then to judge between us such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans And so resteth Thine in the truth of the Gospel W. PYNCHON A Table of the chief Heads But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen for the better observation of some Points and because some of them are too much for the Margin there set onely the first sentence and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton holds but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive symbolical command about things indifferent in their own nature Page 3. * Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws after the time of Adams fall is called the First Covenant of Works and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant as Ainsworth noteth in Psal 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver 12. and with Heb. 9. 19. * Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites Paul cals the Law of Works for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by Gods Covenant to purifie their bodies and so to make them fit persons to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary Rom. 3. 27. and 9. 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense Paul doth also call The Law of Faith to the spiritual Jews because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust onely on Christ for Life and Salvation Gal. 3. 2 3. Rom. 2. 26 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws did by Gods Ordinance make them to belong unto two diffâ—ring Covenants namely both to the Covenant of Works and to the Covenant of Grace contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent in p. 183 184. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating p. 7 Adam sinned not in soul until be had first sinned in body p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroniously but it was from a meer voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity as equal and reciprocal Covenanters p. 9 122 293 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9. The death of Christ saith Grotius was not determined by any Law that was given to man but by a special Covenant Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adams created nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature p. 10 Adams ignorance of that positive Law as of the event that was at the first given to the Angels which was to serve man though in the event many of them refused and thereby became Devils made him the more apt to be deceived by the Devils temptations p. 11 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adams disobedience to the moral Law but through his disobedience to a meer positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adams justification but it was ordained onely to be the condition of his created perfections and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place p. 14 No act of Adams obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life because no other act of his obedience but that alone was constituted by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practise of moral obedience therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections p. 21 * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially as the Faculties do from the soul for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joyned 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 limitâ—ed 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 but a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p. 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. THe quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Atrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP. IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen 3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 9◠22 chap. 13 14 Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises By which wide differing expressions be leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123. holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to
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 he did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordained 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 unmindfulness to Christ in the very time when he did 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 aâ— 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 Christs 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 bave any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon p. 77 and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult 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 â—4 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 torments 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 he did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guilt 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 fâ—uit then his nature as it was â—he feuntain 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 he must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the highest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by natural 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 he 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 he be said to be our lâ—gal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration before he could make his death to be a Sacrifice of Reconciliation p. 92 309 CHAP. VII IT must needs be but a meer fantasie to hold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in full Torments as long as they remain in this world p 105 If the humane nature of Christ had partaken of the essential joyes of heaven before his death as Mr. Norton holds then doubtless he had been confirmed against the sufferings of death p. 107 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 107. Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 29 30 34. that Gods declarative glory is not essential to God Mr. Norton doth often fall from his foundation principle which is That Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell to that which is equivalent p. 107 113 72 The Metaphorical sense of Sheol and Hades is opened p. 108 It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret the same word in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell-torments and then secondly To signifie only the grave p. 109 * Add this as a Marginal Note to p. 109. In this Mr. Norton doth contradict his own rule in p. 76. which is That one and the same word especially not being typical is capable but of one sense in the same place The word Psuche for soul in the New Testament is most often put for the vital soul p. 111 320 CHAP. VIII MR. Norton doth often leave the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty because he doth one while affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse and only that and another while that he suffered only that
which was equivalent p. 113 107. 72 291 After Adams Fall outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes and to the Judicial Ordinances is called the First Covenant of Works p. 118 p. 16 The word Law in Rom. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds because is alludes chiefly to the Ceremonial Law p. 119 p. 238 26 * Add this Note to p. 121. l. 2. The Decalogue was given to faln man as a Covenant of Grace and therefore it requires spiritual obedience to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Ainsworth on Num. 6. 12. saith One little pollution of the Nazarite at unawares did nullifie many dayes purity For saith he the Law requireth a perfect observation and curseth him that continueth not in doing all things commanded Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 29. 12. Jâ— 2. 10. But this is to be noted that if the said Law had not comprehended the Covenant of grace under it it had not so cursed the non-observers And saith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19. the life which Moses set before them was by faith in Christ c. And see more what he saith in Dâ—ut 6. 1. and 7. 1â— And see what Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 62. of the better Covenant The justice of the Law is sometimes satisfied by payment in kind and sometimes by that which is equivalent p. 121 256 202 167 33 Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the Covenant made with Adam as Mr. Norton holds but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Persons in Trinity from Eternity namely that he should assume the seed of the deceived Woman in personal union and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities â— combate with Satan for the victory by continuing constant in his obedience under all Satans ill usage and that at last in that perfect obedience he should make his vital soul a sacrifice and the Father covenanted that his death so performed should procure his reconciliation to all the Elect p. 122 p. 9 130 162 167 55 96 182 183 256 308 CHAP. IX THe ground of satisfaction or of that price that merits Gods reconciliation to the Elect is from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant p. 130 139 55 82 83 96 102 122 257 Perfect obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenant and Combate do merit the prize p. 130 * Add this Note to p. 130. When a prize is merited by an exact and righteous observation of the Laws of the Combate such a prize so obtained may well be called the Prize or the Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judge will give and cannot deny to the lawful Victor 2 Tim. 4. 8. But Christ was such a Righteous Victor in his Combate with Satan notwithstanding his ill usage to disturb his patience and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly That Christ conquered Satan by Righteousness as I have noted some of their speeches in Ch. 16. The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self p. 131 * Add this Note to p. 132. A Covenant from the voluntary Cause doth never yeeld to be over-ruled by the supreme compulsary Cause as Mr. Norton holds as I have often instanced in the Trial of Masteries Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of Satisfaction p. 136 Christs Sacrifice is called a Sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods angry face and procure his Attonement to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners p. 137 191 251 252 259 * Add this Note to p. 137. at Heb. 9. 14. Seeing the Altar was a type of the God-head of Christ the fire of the Altar must by the like reason be also a type of the God-head of Christ And therefore when Isaiah cryed out I am undone because mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts namely Christ in his glory as John expounds it Joh. 12. 41. then saith he One of the Zeraphims came flying unto me having a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from the Altar and he laid it upon my mouth and said Lo this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged Isa 6. 6 7. or as the Hebrew is thy sin is expiated by Attonement procured as Lev. 1. 4. and Rom. 3. 25. this fire was a type of the God-head of Christ which sanctified the offering Mat. 23. 19. Heb. 9. 14. 21. 24. for Attonement to his lips The end why God declared his justice to be satisfied in the said obedience of Christ from his Mercy-seat was first That he might be just according to his Covenant made with Christ And secondly That he might be just according to his New Covenant made with the Elect And thirdly That he might be the Justifier of beleeving sinners p. 139 As the Greek word Dicaios Just is put for one that is pious and merciful so the Hebrew word Chesed Mercy is put for one that is pious and just p. 141 CHAP. X. THe death of Christ could not be a penal death from Gen. 2 17. because God doth threaten none with a penal death neither in that Text nor any other but sinners themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. saith 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 prieftly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at l. 23. As Christs 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 description 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 Paeralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the samâ—â—bligaâ—ion 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 morall Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet saith 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 saith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate â—ioâ— from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decâ—ees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because be was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174. 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our redemption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound him and to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romant p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousness of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgement and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth
the Elect * Add this Note also to p. 417. The power which Christ said he had to lay down his life must not be understood of a permissive power to let Satan take it away formally nor yet of his absolute power as he was God but of his derivative power in relation to his Office of Mediatorship as I noted it in pag. 46. and in p. 420. from Mr. Ball for his Fathers commandement or commission gave him a speciall power of lawfull authority to lay down his life and therefore in vers 18. he saith this commandement or this authority have I as Mediator received of my Father Christs Priestly consecration by his sufferings and his Sacrifice by the formality of his death must not be confounded but distinguished when the parts of his Priestly Office are explained p. 427 No other act of a Priest doth make a Sacrifice formally but such an act as God hath appointed for the taking away of the life of the sacrifice formally p. 429 408 416 309 315 345 The word Sanctifie or make Holy in the Law is frequently ascribed to Gods Attonement and Forgiveness procured by Sacrifice And therefore all those sinners that are made holy by that means are Justified and Righteous persons in Gods sight p. 431 These three legall Phrases Pardon of Sin Gods Attonement and a Sinners Righteousness are the same thing quite contrary to Mr. Nortons long Discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. See p. 432 What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to Reconcile us to himself but by the death of Christs flesh and not by the spiritual death of his immortall Soul as Mr. Norton holds p. 434 The death of Christ as is was a sacrifice of Reconciliation was by Gods voluntary Covenant the full price of mans Redemption p. 436 A Table of some Scriptures that are Expounded or Illustrated Genesis Ch. Vers Page 2 7 4 2 9 4 154. 2 17 23 59 63 112 130 144 149 152. 3 15 82 89 91 96 124 135 142 167 171 176 178 263 269 297 308 310 324 332 341 344 348 400 418. 3 19 30 147 334 401 419. 20 3 158 32 20 137 191 251 252 257. Exodus Ch. Vers Page 22 31 235 432. 23 5 371 24 7 8 119 29 36 37 190 432 30 10 251 30 12 135 255 436 30 16 256 436 32 10 335 32 27 29 92 32 32 181 Leviticus Ch. Vers Page 1 4 133 4 20 233 6 26 213 6 30 233 7 15 272 10 17 194 11 44 432 15 31 50 148 234 16 30 433 17 4 87 17 11 315 318 320 18 5 17 20 15 216. To this Text see our larger Annotation on the word cursed in Gen. 3. 14. Numbers Ch. Vers Page 5 8 251 14 19 233 19 11 15 280 282 25 4 268 275 35 25 319 Deuteronomy Ch. Vers Page 6 24 25 239 9 14 335 21 8 233 257 21 23 262 27 26 119 151 29 12 119 33 19 233 252 Joshua Ch. Vers Page 7 12 276 8 29 272 2 Samuel Ch. Vers Page 21 1 280 21 9 276 22 5 327 1 Kings Ch. Vers Page 21 3 113 131 256 2 Kings Ch. Vers Page 20 1 157 2 Chron. Ch. Vers Page 30 19 20 158 Job Ch. Vers Page 1 21 179 348 2 7 ibid. 19 21 ibid. 36 32 189 42 8 258 Psalms Ch. Vers Page 16 10 109 18 5 321 327 22 1 59 370 25 11 333 25 18 168 31 5 436 32 1 168 258 260 32 5 85 40 6 213 40 8 44 187 40 16 270 49 7 8 9 94 135 51 14 233 51 19 233 252 65 4 137 69 7 9 269 69 20 343 69 27 349 78 38 160 94 15 138 118 19 49 Proverbs Ch. Vers Page 7 9 272 28 13 197 Isay Ch. Vers Page 53 4 162 Â 5 166 178 181 266 349 375 Â 6 167 186 193 Â 7 181 184 Â 8 351 Â 9 351 Â 10 96 124 178 211 222 223 314 348. Â 12 188 220 337 344 378 399. Jeremy Ch. Vers Page 30 21 187 33 8 50 Ezekiel Ch. Vers Page 18 4 20 25 94 149 217 27 12 13 14-373 Â Daniel Ch. Vers Page 6 14 224 6 14 340 6 21 23 429 8 14 49 235 260 9 7 16 233 9 24 27 48 139 196 223 233 233 241 250 260 9 26 225 352 Jonah Ch. Vers Page 3 4 158 Zachery Ch. Vers Page 13 1 190 13 7 347 Matthew Ch. Vers Page 4 1 346 5 17 18 113 16 21 142 19 28 29 20 22 33 305 26 28 260 Â 31 346 Â 38 173 269 270 298 Â Â 314 321 327. Â 39 9 46 305 Â 46 335 339 Â 47 347 Â 53 54 184 298 384 27 39 270 Â 45 179 Â 46 59 370 Mark Ch. Vers Page 10 39 305 307 14 33 223 338. 14 24 35 290 15 27 28 220 352 Luke Ch. Vers Page 9 28 107 9 31 121 10 40 374 12 50 183 22 28 170 Â 44 100 177 331 334 336 338. Â 53 184 418 23 34 45 23 46 436 414 24 25 26 44-143 Â 24 46 95 John Ch. Vers Page 10 11 181 344 10 15 181 314 10 17 18 46 298 314 369 409 418 426 11 33 337 417 12 27 337 404 14 30 31 184 346 352 16 32 61 18 4 6 184 18 11 179 298 19 11 179 351 ib. 28 75 328 ib. 30 75 90 ib. 33 415 Acts. Ch. Vers Page 2 23 179 312 351 ib. 27 109 3 17 18 142 4 28 179 13 27 28 143 15 9 259 in the Manusc Note Romans Ch. Vers Page 1 32 239 2 13 18 ib. 26 241 260 3 21 223 237 ib. 25 136 233 258 ib. 26 134 140 180 228 ib. 27 15 244 ib. 31 125 4 Â 88 ib. 25 312 5 9 10 229 ib. 12 31 ib. 14 31 153 ib. 16 240 and so it is translated justified in Syracides 14 20. ib. 18 135 211 228 233 240 ib. 19 16 153 211 233 343 8 3 49 226 237 and see the Dialogu p. 116 ib. 4 119 237 238 260 ib. 23 29 ib. 32 95 179 312 350 9 31 244 10 3 138 232 237 ib. 4 242 15 30 335 1 Corinth Ch. Vers Page 1 24 25 424 6 11 237 259 260 ib. 20 256 9 24 178 340 15 29 306 ib. 30 53 â—9 2 Corinth Ch. Vers Page 5 21 207 13 4 423 3 13 262 ib. 16 342 4 4 5 47 5 11 270 Philippians Ch. Vers Page 1 30 340 2 6 132 139 ib. 8 9 124 344 ib. 9 10 11 177 3 9 120 123 233 Twice ib. 10 11 370 4 3 340 Colossians Ch. Vers Page 1 21 22 434 ib. 29 340 2 14 15 124 146 344 234 419 1 Tim. Ch. Vers Page 2 6 256 4 10 340 2 Tim. Ch. Vers Page 2 5 178 4 7 8 178 340 Titut Ch. Vers Page 2 14 p. 50 259 Philemon Ch. Vers Page v. 18 Â 87 219 and see Peter Martyrs Com. pl. part p. 4. 263. Hebrews Ch. Vers
sin as the Decalogue doth and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings c. must needs belong to it Seeing then there is so great a difference This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue Reason 2. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin If Adams eating had been a sin against the moral Law then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating against the moral Law then the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it had been a moral sin before her act of eating for the Text saith It was a desire to her eyes and she saw it was good for food and a Tree to be desired c. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxime of all that expound the moral Law that it binds the inward man as well as the outward and so saith our Saviour He that looks upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart Math. 5. 28. And in that respect Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we in Adam first sinned in soul properly And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons Divinity that there Adam sinned not in soul untill he had first sinned in body was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating And then her act of eating had not been her first sin as usually it is esteemed and called and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm In the day thou eatest thereof and not in the day thou desirest to eat shalt thou dye the death Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food and that it was a desire to her eyes yet if then she had but stayed her desire here and had gone no further she had not sinned For such positive Laws as this do not bind the inward man but the outward man only 1 Take this Instance If a Jew had desired to eat Swines flesh to satisfie his hunger because it was good food by creation and yet had forborn the act of eating he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purifie himself by washing in regard of his said inward desire to eat 2 Take another Instance It was a Ceremonial sin by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corps because it defiled the outward man only and not because it defiled the conscience for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience at least upon some of his near relations not only to desire but really to touch his dead Corps and to carry it to its burial 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford The Law of God because it is holy In Christs dying at Asser 5. p. 141. and spiritual doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motioâ—s of our soul and the Law of nature but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God such as was the Lords Command that Christ should dye for sinners is not required in the Law of God If Adam saith he had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit and had not eaten there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil And at Asser 4. page 140. he saith thus A conditional and submissive desire though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God is no sin nor doth the Law positive require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire Gods Command to Abraham saith he to kill his only Son and to offer him a sacrifice to God was a meer positive Command for it is not a command of the Law of Nature nor any other then positive for the Father to kill the Son yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love commanded also in the Law of nature to save his Sons life and doth desire that he may still live this desire and inclination though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God is no sin because the fifth Commandement grounded on the Law of nature did command it And Christs desire that the Cup might passe from him was Mat. 26. 39. The Command of God for Christ to dye was not a moral but a positive Command no sin Mat. 26. 39. Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command as Mr. Norton holds but a positive command and that command saith he did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversly propounded but at thirdly saith he the Father bargains by way of work or hire or wages to give a seed to his Son Es 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his Seed and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue affirmeth That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life was a moral Command and that Christs obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law in page 57. c. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him yet in this he is point blank against him These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws do prove that Adam sinned not in soul but in body only at first by his actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zauchy Tract Theol. c 4. de peccaâ—o originali 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
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 a way 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 abnoxii 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 any 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. place 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 Adams 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 The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as 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 gift wherewith man was endowed before his fall were removed from him when he had sinned and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God Although the blame saith he be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man lest a man should straitway say that God is the cause of sin for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned straitway vicâ—s and corruptions followed of their own accord Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam This of Peter Martyr and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me then also I considered that Adams perfections were created to be but mutable untill he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life and therefore they were but lent him for a triall for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill he should dye the death and so lose his created perfections and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit God in justice took them away But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Imageâ— for he created him to be but of a mâ—rtable condition and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first In like sort at the first God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9. But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him because he gave it no otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose he should still have enjoyed it but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag then God took away this spirit of Government from him and then Saul grew wicked 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adams nature for his disobedience against his positive command as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command Conclusions 1 Hence it follows that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good as I conceive it is Then Mr. Nortons second Proposition and all his other Propositions that affirm that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice do fall to the ground 2 Hence it follows that the bodily death of the Elect and Eternal death iâ— hel is but an accidental punishment to the first â—piritual death both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of mans nature in sin and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. or thus Adams disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of mans nature in sin the spiritual death of mans nature in sin was afterwards the meritorious cause of bodily death though God was pleased to sanctifie that punishment to all that do beleeve in the Promised Seed and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that beleeve not in the Promised Seed for when God ordained death he ordained judgement to succeed it Heb. 9. 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement He that beleeveth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life But the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3 36. 3 Hence it follows that the inviolable rule of Gods relative Justice for mans Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of Gods secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall and that secret will but now revealed was that the formality of Christs death in seperating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice and the formality of all satisfaction as it is explained in Heb. 9. 15 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth Proposition is this Merit is either absolute so God cannot be a debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or by way of free Covenant so God in case hath made himself a debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and onely that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him Reply He saith Gods will being the rule of justice this 's true if it be taken for his secret will for it is his secret and not his revealed will that is the inviolable rule of his relative justice God may and often doth free a sinner from his revealed threatned punishments upon such account as himself pleased to decree in the counsel of his own will and yet he is just in so doing though his revealed will be contrary and the reason is plain because he hath ordained his secret will to be the absolute rule of his inviolable relative justice for God is often said to repent of his revealed threatned plagues as I have
shewed in Chap. 10. Sect. 4. and in Chap. 15. Sect. 2. at Eighthly His sixth Proposition is this The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye as God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Reply Take this Proposition in relation to Adams mutable condition wherein he was created unto which the promise and threatning of the first Covenant hath immediate relation and then experience tells us that the threatning in case of Adams disobedience was executed and so in case he had first eaten of the Tree of life God should have been unjust if he had not confirmed him in his present created perfections But Mr. Norton it seems takes this promise and threatning chiefly to intend either eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell as if Adam had been immediately under the threatning of hell-torments and that there is no other way to redeem him from them unlesse Christ stood as his Surety in the same obligation with him to bear them But the Reader may please to see my Reply to his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 10. and in other places I have often Replied to Gen. 2. 17. as you may see by the Table to that Scripture But as touching Gods promises of salvation and his threatning of damnation there is not the same reason of Gods performing promises and threatnings for mans happinesse is contained in the promises and therefore man performing the condition God cannot but will the reward the fame will that wills the making of the promise must necessarily will the giving of the reward promised the condition being performed otherwise it would be vain and of no use for God to make promises to man But aâ— for threatnings which concern mans destruction there is no such tye upon God unlesse his threatnings be delivered with an oath and therefore man will not and cannot complain if they be not executed and if God will rather glorifie his mercy in remitting the punishment upon what account he thought best in the Counsel of his own Will who can say he is unjust mercy herein rejoyceth against judgement See also my note on Psal 94. 15. His seventh Proposition is this The Elect then having sinned the Elect must dye if they dye in their own persons election is frustrate God is unfaithful if they dye not at all God is unjust the commination is untrue If elect men dye in their own person the Gospel is void if man doth not dye the Law is void they dye therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satiâ—fied justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel c. Reply My former Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Sect. 3. is a sufficient confutation of this Proposition But Mr. Norton goes another way in his opening of that text and of that threatning and yet he doth not prove but beg the question and then he makes his inferences The Elect then saith he having sinned must dye he takes not this death for death in sin as the truth is but he takes it principally for eternal death in hell I say in that sense his Proposition is not true for God never willed that the Elect should dye an eternal death in his fifth Proposition he said Gods will was the rule of his relative justice and yet he willed that the Reprobate should consequently dy an eternal death in the same threatning in case they did not imbrace the mercy offered by the promised Seed What God intended by that threatning is now evident to us by experience namely that the Reprobate should dye a spiritual death in sin and after that a corporal and after that an eternal death and that the Elect should dye a spiritual death in sin as well as the Reprobate and that after that they should have a new nature by the promised Seed and after that should dye a corporal death but yet that the Elect should be freed from eternal death upon such terms as were mutually agreed on betwixt the Trinity and that the remains of their spiritual death and also that their corporal death and all other punishments that should be inflicted on them for sin should by Gods infinite mercy and wisdome be turned to their good for the glorifying of his free grace and rich mercy And it was just with God to do according to this his wil and therefore Mr. Nortons conclusion of this Proposition confutes his former part as Gods will is the rule of righteousnesse So Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousnesse The plain English of it must needs be this That in as much as it was the will of God not to execute the threatning of eternal death strictly upon the Elect but to moderate it and to suffer Sathan to inflict something only contained in it upon their Mediator by piercing him in the foot-soals at the same time when the seed of the Woman should break his Head-plot by making his soul a sacrifice for sin as the price of their Redemption for the glory of his grace This being the will of God it must needs be just as well as it was just for him to execute all that was contained in the threatning upon the Reprobates His eighth Proposition Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2. 17. he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule But man having sinned man must dye and satisfie the Law that man may live c. Reply In that Christ did dye for the Elect it did not come to passe from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatning But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdome and free grace in the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity to will it and to accept of his death and sacrifice as the price of their Redemption Heb. 10. 5. 7. Eph. 1. 7 8. And Mr. Norton himself in his answer to his first Query doth acknowledge that vindicative justice hath no necessary connexion with the being of God but is an act of Gods good pleasure Secondly He takes it often for grace which is as often denied that Christ was Adams Surety in the same obligation to the first Covenant Thirdly His conclusion that God could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely that man sinned man must dye in the man Christ Jesus I have shewed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a meer Pralogisme namely a deceitful Sylogisms which seemeth true when it is not CHAP.
the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mâ—diator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten Commandements to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship just as the Dialogue doth and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith that Christs obedience in laying down his life was in obedience to a positive Law and not to the moral Law as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds the one they call Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines Justitia personae but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justitia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Prideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personae they place in Causa sine qua non 6 Saith Mr. Baxter many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God are of this judgement In his Pos of Just p. 53. and there he names many and saith he in his late Apologie to Mr. Blake p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of speciall use c. SECT 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice and was Legal obedience And in the same page he makes the Incarnation of Christ also to be legal obedience Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds That God had ordained Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not moral obedience but Mediatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship no other way to take satisfaction but first by our Saviours performing of legal obedience for us and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments for this way only he calls The way of Justice But in the former Section I have shewed that sundry orthodox whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd and yet they deny that Christs obedience in his death was legal obedience contrary to Mr. Norton 2 I will adde Mr. Ball to them for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience The Law saith he did not require that God should dye nor that any should dye that had not sinned nor such a death and of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam lost And saith Mr. Ball Christ upon the Crosse prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant P. 259. that crucified him Luke 23. 34. But saith he that might be of private duty as man who subjected himself to the Law of God which requires that we forgive our enemies and pray for them that persecute us not of the proper office of a Mediator which was to offer up himself a sacrifice who was to interecede for his people by suffering death It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law to fulfill all Righteousnesse and to pray for his enemies but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator Hence the Reader may observe that Mr. Ball makes Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee out of private duty as a man and not ex officio out of the proper office of a Mediator as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life and therefore had power to lay it down and take it up And this power he had though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law but by vertue of a particular Command Constitution and Designation to that service of laying down his life This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter The Law of the Creature and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different The will of his Father which hee came to do consisted in many things which were never required of us And such saith he are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad upon Gomarus doth thus Upon Gomarus p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will By which Will wee are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that were requisite for the Expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Law set apart he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself And hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant then not by his obedience to the moral Law 5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law then his desire That the Cup might passe from him in Matth. 26. 39. had been a sinful desire But saith Mr. Rutherford because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to dye therefore that desire was no sin as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law but iâ— was commanded over and besides the moral Law as I cited him in the former Section 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art beyond others by which hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarnation to be moral obedience or else he would never say as hee If the Incarnation of Christ had been
an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto he was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141. and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dan 9. 24 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely or the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sins See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now Heb. 9. 26. once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Justifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8. 14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jâ—stification And in this
respect the Temple is also called The habitation of justice Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither were justified persons as to the outward man yea all the Nation in this respect are holy Exod. 19. and therefore any of Israel though never so vild by moral sins yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary as justified persons in regard of that place but on the contrary if any man though never so godly and therefore morally justified did but want this ceremonial cleansing they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in Gods Sanctuary and were guilty of cutting off by death Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19. 13. so then their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law was but to typifie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time as the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse as in Jer. 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33 8. sinned against me and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me Here cleansing is put for justification by forgivenesse And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall bee clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idols will I cleanse you And in vers 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9. 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fulnesse of time doth purge us Heb. 1. 3-and cleanse us Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Fathers Attonement which doth formally expiate sin cleanse it purge it and wash it away See Ains in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 16. 30 33. Numb 8. 7 21. Numb 19. 9. Psal 51. 7. So that to them that are in Charist there is no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers of Gal. 4. 4. is this God sent forth his Son This word sent implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity or else the Father could not have sent him forth for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son because they are in nature equal Joh. 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent which may bee called a Covenant I came down from Heaven said Christ not to do mine own humane will but the will of him that sent me Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman For according to Gen. 3 15. Hee was made of the seed of the woman by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law Being made of a woman that was a Jew he was made under the Law of Types 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law But hee could not redeem any from the bondage of Moses Rites untill hee had fulfilled all the Types by his own blessed death and sacrifice in the fulnesse of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God and from Sathans Head-plot It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice but that he did as he was a Jew only but he fulfilled the Types as hee was a Mediator only by his death and sacrifice and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us both from the bondage of Moses Rites and also from Sathans Head-plot And thus we may see that the Types of the ceremonial Law The ceremonial Types of cleansing especially of Priest and Sacrifice did typifie our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacrifice in procuring Gods Attonement Heb 9. 13. especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice were ordained to typifie the Law of Mediatorship and our moral justification by him Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for mans redemption let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies for in them as in a glasse they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption and therefore when Christ came into the world he said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in place of Types then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God by the doing of which will we are sanctified namely purged purified or cleansed from sin as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9. 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying see Ains in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all To cleanse men from sins meerly Ceremonial the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance Heb. 9. 13. and hence the Apostle infers in vers 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this namely in the super-excellency of this High-priest above the Legal-priest in vers 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood as vers 12. but in the super-â—xcellency of this High-priest and his sacrifice united personally as vers 14. How much more c. Suppose a Priest aâ— excellent had been found and also a Sacrifice as excellent in two distinct persons yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator but the admirable personal union of this High-priest and Sacrifice did comprise the act of one Mediator for so saith the Text he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit namely by his God-head and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament vers 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin And secondly hence it had vertue to confirm the Testament for the many as it is expressed in vers 15 16 17. Thirdly I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9. 27. with Gal. 4. 4 5. which lyes thus He shall confirm the Testament for the Many the last Seven that is to say in the very end of the last Seven which is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4. 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed there must of necessity be the death of the Testator for a Testament is confirmed and of force after men be dead it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives Heb. 9. 16 17. The next clause in Daniel is this And in the half of that Seven which is three years and a half namely in the end of this
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 thâ—reby to make Eternâ—ty 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. Job 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-terments are made known to us two wayes See Hierous 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 hee 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 Hang-man 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 is left Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of losse in respect of the fruition 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 22. cited also in Sect 4. 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 Jam. 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 thâ—n 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 deserved to bee damned And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threatned Gen 2. 17. in Gen. 2. 17. to bee separated from the sense of the good things of the promise and calls it total in Christ and total in the Reprobates and all this flowing from the same Curse And in page 68. Hee calls it his total desertion in respect of sense upon the Crosse and presently after he saith The pain of losse and the pain of sense make up the full measure of the essential wrath of God and they both met together in full measure upon him on the Crosse Mark this Hee doth in both these places hold that Christ suffered the full measure of the pain of losse And in page 79. He saith That forsaking is either total and Psal 22. 1. Mat. 27. 46. final so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise so God forsook Christ Of this forsaking Christ complains in this place being a principal part of that punishment which Christ as the Surety
de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is â—n effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de facto are not Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam till it please God to make
causes and according to the way All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins imputed and order of those causes the suffering of punishments is not a Relate to the imputation of sin preceding As for example in the point of tryal of Masteries there the suffering of punishments is meerly and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant both in the Law-makers and in the undertakers and such were all the sufferings of Christ they were all from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and all his outward sufferings were from his voluntary undertaking to enter the lists with Sathan according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. and not from the imputation of the guilt of our sins according to the order of Court-justice I grant also that when ever God doth punish any one in See Burges on Justif p. 27. anger it is alwayes from the imputation of sin in the subject and so saith Mr. Burges God afflicts none namely in anger but where there is sin in the subject and in that sense guilt and punishment are Relates but yet from the Voluntary cause and Covenant punishments may be suffered without judicial imputation and so consequently without judicial anger But of this see more in my Reply to 2 Cor. 5. 21. The guilt of Adams sin saith Dr. Reynolds is inseparable from In his sinfulnesse of sin p. 35. the sin it self being the proper passion of it Lo in this short sentence how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adams first sin he makes his guilt to be the proper passion of his first sin And hence it follows necessarily according to Mr. Norton That the guilt of Adams sin being imputed to Christ he must be spiritually dead in sin for spiritual death in sin is the proper guilt and proper passion of Adams first sin This I hinted at in the Dialogue And of this see more in Chap. 2. in R. 2. ult If original sin had not been ordained in Gods justice to bee the proper guilt and punishment of Adams first sin then it would follow that Adams cating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin And now compare Mr. Nortons distinction to the guilt of Adams sin Imputation of guilt saith he is the obligation to punishment By this Doctrine it follows that Christ did suffer the guilt and punishment of Adams first sin namely a spiritual death in sin God imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all men because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by vertue of Gods Covenant touching mans nature in general Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam because Gods Covenant was made with Adam and the nature of all mankind in general as I have shewed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatned but so was not Christ hee was not of Adam by ordinary Generation Our guilt saith Mr. Baxter in his Preface to Mr. Ayr page 7. was Reat us culpae poenae propter culpam ex obligatione legis Christs guilt is but Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obligatus ad eandem the same in value but not Eadem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molinaeus page 224. he doth justly taxe this kind of Imputation to bee the very root and master veyn of all Antinomianism And in page 225. saith hee Bee it known to you therefore that Christ did obey and suffer in the person of a Mediator and not in persona delinquentis though for the sins of the Delinquent being obliged to suffer by his voluntary undertaking and therefore his sufferings or obedience are none of ours as performed by him But Mr. Norton in the point of imputing our sins to Christ doth go beyond his said Distinction as I apprehend For in page 79. ult Hee saith That Christ was a notorious Malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God In page 98. Whom wee have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect both hanged upon the Crosse and others In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Reply 3. In these and other like places he makes our sins as well as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It In Rom 5. p. 121. b. cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hee hath before committed sin unlesse wee will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them P. Martyr I confess speaks this of Infants that dye before they have committed any actual sin but yet it is a four square truth in general Turn it on which side you will and it will lye fast he tells Pigghius that God could not impute the guilt of Adams sin to Infants unlesse Infants had been first truly guilty of Adams sin and it is evident that all Infants and all the world are truly guilty of Adams sin because all mankind were in Adam not only naturally but also legally in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him as the head of mans nature in general So that by the force of that Covenant concerning mans nature in general all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant in case of Adams obedience and in the evil of the Curse of that Covenant in case of his disobedience and therefore seeing all had this equal interest in the Covenant of nature it follows that wee had an interest in his sin as well as in his guilt and therefore the guilt of his sin is justly imputed to Infants as well as unto others and this example doth shew us that sin and guilt are relates in the same subject and not in two distinct subjects and this David did acknowledge in Ps 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Mark this he doth acknowledge that God did not onely forgive his sin but the iniquity guilt or punishment of his sin namely condemnation but not all outward punishments In these words I say it is evident that David doth acknowledge that sin and guilt do cleave as close together as the skin and flesh do to the bones and the like he doth acknowledge in Psal 41. 5. and therefore if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ then out of doubt sin it self was imputed to Christ also and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do Secondly touching the point of Gods imputation I beleeve it cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that God doth impute
righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 12. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and a little after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator because â—of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of our guilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father
as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death is not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve hell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traberâ—n do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on him according to the natural order of Justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary â—ause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should aâ— a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all this may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posiâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I think the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr.
a 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 Statute 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. â— 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 it on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Jehovah hath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Testament 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 Lev. 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operato 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 ftom 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 Jesus 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 â—etter 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 satisfaction 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
his obedient death on the Crosse The Apostle doth tell us that we have Remission of sins by vertue of Christs satisfaction namely by his bloody death and sacrifice Heb. 9. 15 26 28. Heb. 10. 10 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell in all the Scripture though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation and therefore it will fall of it self His eight Argument examined which is this If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith hath established the Law Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law Reply 1. If by this conclusion Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law he means no more but this namely that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it then hee proves no more than the Dialogue and all good Christians do grant But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse which doubtlesse is the great thing that he aims at then any ordinary Reader may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand except it be to fill up the number of Eight But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition for though the Text doth expressely say That justifying faith doth establish the Law yet it doth not thence follow That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith this also is another Paradox for many Orthodox Divines do shew how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects Reply 2. I say that Mr. Nortons exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing neer the Apostles meaning What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth yet Dr. Willet whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve doth reject their exposition and that upon this ground because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law by the members of Christ and not by Christ the Head alone And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth Wee sairh he make it firm and effectual But Calvin renders the text thus It is established and confirmed And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text refuting the Antinomians Mr. Burges saith It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In Vindiciae legis lect 21. p. 209. or strengthning a pillar that is ready to fall Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator namely that to establish is to confirm in opposition to abrogate or disanull And truly seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former it follows that to establish the Law must not be expounded to fulfill the Law as Mr. Norton doth carry it for saith hee Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law But because four of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresie against the Dialogue Therefore I will labour to shew the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it 1 I intreat the Judicious Reader to take notice That the Question betwixt us is not whether faith doth establish the Law or no for the Text it self doth affirm it But the point in difference is In what sense doth faith establish the Law Mr. Norton saith That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments But in that sense I deny it Neither will I tire out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned but pitch upon such as I beleeve are foundest 1 Take notice that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously shew how the Law is established several wayes and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law he comes nothing neer to Mr. Nortons sense 2 Aretius shews how the Law is established three wayes by faith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse 3 Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius shews that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. â— c 5 n. 7. p. 120. c. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice which is in very deed the proper end of the Law and for this sense hee produceth the Testimony of Augustine Anselm and Primasius 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox who In Vindiciae legis lect 21. ult in p. 120 121. shew how the Law is established by faith But he rejects Mr. Nortons way of establishing as Dr. Willet did and concludes with the judgement of Austine that the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfill the Law and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law 5 Mr. Blake saith thus Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Faederis p. 50. would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ namely that he came to destroy the Law Mat. 5. 17 18. saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it and in other words he proceeds to shew that faith doth establish the Law as it is the Rule of sanctified walking 6 Saith Mr. Ball The Apostle doth not perpetually and absolutely Ball on the Coven p. 115. oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace for he teacheth expresly that Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3. 31. for saith he the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith But because the Jews addicted to the letter of the Law did pretermit the force and life of it Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith to be the cause not of life but of death c. 7 Tindal saith Faith onely justifieth maketh righteous and In Tindals works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law for it bringeth the Spirit through Christs deservings The Spirit bringeth lust looseth the heart maketh him free and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love even as the Law requireth then at last out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law his speech sounded as though he would
the mirror of his Tenent as in page 4. 17. 40. 55. 213. 246. c. and hee thinks that the very words of the Text do plainly confirm his sense because he hath bestowed but little pains in his Exposition Mr. Norton makes God to be just in this Text because he exacted such a full satisfaction from Christ our Surety materially as he hath threatned to sinners in the moral Law and therefore he makes the Incarnation and the Death of Christ and all his sufferings to be in obedience to the moral Law which hee calls the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice Reply I on the contrary do therefore make God to be called Just in this Text because he declared his Righteousnesse in forgiving beleeving sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christ which he performed according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant as it was determined in Gods secret will and revealed only in his voluntary positive Laws and not in his moral Law for his positive Laws do often differ yea they are often contrary to his moral Law And in my Reply to his fifth and sixth Propositions in Chap. 2. and elsewhere I have shewed that Gods secret will declared only in his positive Laws and not in his moral Law is the inviolable Rule of his Relative Justice 2 It is acknowledged by many judicious that there passed a voluntary Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and that God did first declare this counsel of his Will in Gen. 3. 15. namely that he would put an utter Gen. 3. 15. enmity between the Devil in the Serpent and the seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have ful liberty to deceive this seed of the woman and to pervert his obedience if he could by fraud as he had done Adam or by force in putting him to an ignominious violent death on the Crosse by piercing him in the Foot-soals but God declared also that this seed of the Woman should not be deceived but that he should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience to the death and that he should make his soul a sacrifice in the midst of his Tortures on the Crosse which doubtlesse was exemplified The ground of full and just satisfaction to Gods justice is not by paying our full debt materially bur formally that God doth accept for full and just satisfaction which was constituted so to be by the conditions of the voluntary Covenant to Adam by the death and sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed elsewhere as full satisfaction to Gods Justice and as the procuring cause of Gods Reconciliation to all that should beleeve in this Promised seed for what else can bee called full satisfaction but that only that is so made by the voluntary Covenant for the half shekels in Exod. 30 12. was called the price of the Redemption of their lives but any man may see by Psal 49. 8. that materially it was not a full price until it was made to bee the full price formally only by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant Of this see more in Chap. 14. Sect. at Reply 8. 3 The performance of the said Combate and Sacrifice on Christs part is in Scripture phrase called The Righteousnesse of Christ and the meritorious nature of it was to bind God the Father to perform his Covenant on his part which was that he should be attoned and reconciled to beleeving sinners by forgiving their sins and receiving them into favour and the performance of this on God the Fathers part is often in Scripture-phrase called the Righteousnesse of God as I have shewed in 2 Cor. 5. 21. That so he might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus But for the better understanding of this 26. verse I will propound and answer these two Queries 1 How God declared his Justice at this time 2 Why at this time 1 Touching the manner how God declared his Justice that must be fetched from its coherence with verse 25. and there it Rom. 3. 25. is said that God declared his justice in setting forth Christ to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood for the remission of sins 1 Hence it is evident that God had covenanted to and with Christ that if he would undertake to be the seed of the Woman and in that humane nature to combate with the Enemy Sathan to the shedding of his blood and would still continue obedient to the death and at last make his soul a sacrifice then he should be his Mercy-seat and then he would be reconciled to all beleevers and forgive them their sins through faith in his blood and therefore as soon as sinners are united to Christ by faith It is Gods Justice or his Righteousnesse to remit their sins that are past as I shewed before in 1 Joh. 1. 9. and more fully in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Heb. 8. 12. 2 This very name His Propitiatory whence God declares Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of satisfaction Heb. 4. 16. his Justice in remitting sins doth plainly tell us but that we are dull of hearing that Christs satisfaction was not Solutio ejusdem but tantidem by vertue of the voluntary Covenant or else what need is there that God should declare his justice from his Propitiatory or from his Mercy-seat or from his Throne of grace as Christ by his Satisfaction is called in Heb. 4. 16. if Christs satisfaction had been solutio ejusdem as Mr. Norton holds then it should have been more fitly said that God declared his justice from his Justice-seat and not from his Mercy-seat but because Christs death and sacrifice was by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant made to be the Tantidem for beleevers as it is evident by the former instance of the half shekels which was made to be the full price of the Redemption of their lives formally only by Gods voluntary Covenant therefore it is most fitly said that God declared his justice from his Mercy-seat 3 This phrase Caporeth his Propitiatory or his Mercy-seat is first used in Exod. 25. 17. And it is commonly used saith Ainsworth to set forth Gods merciful covering of sins as in Psal 65. 4. where it is translated by the Seventy with the allowance Psal 65. 4. of the Holy Ghost in Heb. 9. 5. Hilasterion that is a Propitiatory or a Covering Mercy-seat and saith he this is applied by the Apostle to Christ Rom. 3. 25. See more of Caphar in Chap. 14. Sect. 6. Reply 8. The Hebrew Caphar saith Ainsworth is applied to the covering of an angry countenance as in Gen. 32. 20. There Jacob is Gen. 32. 20. said to cover Esau's angry face or to appease his anger by a liberal and acceptable gift and this word Caphar saith Ainsworth is often used in the Law for the covering or taking away Christs sacrifice is called a sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods angry face
procure his Attonement to beleeving sinners of offence by pacifying Gods anger by gifts and sacrifices and typified that Christ should give himself to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement whereby sin is covered or passed by Exod. 29. 36. Lev. 1. 4. Lev. 4. 20. 26. c. And thus Gods angry face was covered or appeased by the burnt offering of Christs body as soon as he had finished all his sufferings for he offered himself by the holy fire of his eternal Spirit so Dr. Taylor doth once make the type of Fire to speak in Noahs sacrifice in Heb. 9. 14. for as the Altar did signifie the Heb. 9. 14. God-head of Christ so the fire of the Altar must be alike type of the God-head of Christ also and thus Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament through this kind of death Heb. 9 14 15 16. by which hee procured Gods Attonement or Reconciliation for the iniquity of the many and so he became his Mercy-seat and after this manner God set forth Christ to be his Propitiatory through faith in his blood to declare his Righteousnesse by remitting sins 4 Peter Martyr doth open this phrase His Righteousnesse or the justice of God in Rom. 3. 21. thus If a man do more narrowly consider this word the Justice or Righteousnesse of God It is the mercy of God which he bestoweth upon us through Christ And in Rom. 10. 3. He calls the justice of God Gods forgivenesse and saith he I have in another place admonished Rom. 10. 3. that the Hebrew word Tzedec which our men have translated Righteousnesse signifieth rather Goodnesse and Mercy and therefore to this day the Jews call Alms by that name and saith he Ambrose on this place is of the self-same mind and see more how Peter Martyr doth expound Gods Righteousnesse in my Reply on 2 Cor. 5. 21. 5 I have also shewed in the Dialogue page 118. that Tzedec Justice or Righteousnesse is often translated by the Seventy Goodnesse or Mercy as in Psal 24. 5. Ps 33. 5. Ps 103. 6. Es 1. 27 Dan. 4. 27. Dan. 9. 16. Deut. 24. 13. and their Translation doth well agree to the true sense of Ps 112. 4. 9. and to Ps 94. 15. where God is said to turn Judgement into justice namely to Psal 94. 15. turn vindicative justice into merciful justice for indeed God hath as exact a way of merciful justice by the satisfaction of Christ according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant to beleevers as if the rigor of his moral Curse had been executed on their Surety in kind and better too because the first way was constituted to be the way and the other is but imaginary according to the legal proceedings of Court justice And indeed the Justice or Righteousnesse of God the Father wherein he is just according to his Covenant with Christ to forgive them their sins that do beleeve in the death and sacrifice of Christ is an example of the highest degree of Mercy Charity and Alms that the world can afford 6 God is said to judge the world in Justice namely in his merciful justice Psal 96. 13. Psal 98. 9. Psal 68. 5. Psal 146. 7 8. And it is said in Act. 17. 31. That God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in Righteousnesse some understand it of Gods vindicative justice on the impenitent at the day of Judgment but Broughton reads it in Mercy or in merciful justice namely by his Gospel of grace declaring his merciful justice in judging the world by it for by his Gospel of grace he doth judge the world in favour to their poor blind and captivated souls as in Esa 42. 1 2 3 4. and in Mat. 12 18. and in Joh. 12. 31. and Obad. vers 21. and see Broughton also in Job 37. 23. By these and such like particulars we may see how God was just according to his Covenant with Christ to declare his righteousness by forgiving the sins of beleevers for his sake and from that Covenant with Christ he hath also Covenanted with the Elect mercifully to forgive their iniquities and to remember their sins no more Jer. 31. 34. which is expounded â—hus in Heb. 8. 13. I will be pacified or reconciled to their unrighteousness and this is called God the Fathers righteousness whereby he makes a sinner righteous Secondly I come now to answer the second Queâ—â—ion Why did God declare his Justice or his Righteousness at this â—inâ— The answer is that he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus God declared the exact time when he would fulfil his Promise The end of Gods merciful justicâ— dâ—clared from his Mercy-seat in Christs satisfaction was that he might be just and that he might be the justifier of beleeving sinners Dan. 9. 24. Gal. 4. 4 5. and Covenant by his Angel Gabriel to Daniel namely that from his prayer to the death of the Messiah it should be exactly Four hundred and ninety years and that then the Messiah by his death and sacrifice should end all legal sin-offerings and finish all trespass-offerings and make reconciliation for iniquity and so by that means bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness or an eternal Reconciliation instead of their typical Righteousness for by the language of the Law we are taught that a sinners righteousness doth consist in Gods reconciliation or in Gods forgiveness and receiving into favor Dan. 9. 24. and in relation to this Paul saith That when the fulness of the time spoken of by Daniel was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law namely under the Law of Rites that he by his death might fulfil those typical Rites to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons So then as Christ was just in making satisfaction according to Covenant in the exact time foretold for mans 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 dismiss 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
in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 8. 15. Rom. 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ wâ—thin the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation is no part of the Gospel but in the second sense it is Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance is to make good his answer to the Dialogue namely that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works even as Damnation though it be no part of the Gospel yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel I say the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it and therefore he hath not as yet proved that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17. But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text for saith he in page 24 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited was a figure of Rom. 5 14. Christ to come Rom. 5. 14. Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited But in the effects that followed
his eating prohibited the typical Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ lyes only in some general things as thus Adam was the head of that Covenant which God made with him concerning the nature of all mankind and so Christ was the head of the Covenant of grace which God made with him concerning the Regenerating of the nature of all the Elect Adam by his disobedience merited a corrupt nature to all his posterity and Christ by his obedience even to death merited a sanctified nature to all his elect seed The Reader may fetch the parallel from P. Martyr Dr. Willet and others on Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 5. 19. But what is the inference that Mr. Norton makes namely That Christ is contained within the compasse of this Text. I say it follows not for though there may be a resemblance between the first and second Adam in many other things yet not in all things and therefore in some things Adam was no figure of Christ as for example He was no figure of Christ in bearing the essential Curse And that is the point which Mr. Norton doth aim at in this Text. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22. 2. And saith he If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Reply 4. We may soon lose our selves in this dispute if wee keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand which Mr. Norton labors to confute The Dialogue saith this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compasse of it as liable to the death there threatned But Mr. Norton cites another text to prove it namely Gen 2. 9. and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compasse of this text of Gen. 2. 17. namely as the Surety of the Elect and that thereby he was made liable to suffer the death there threatned for saith he Man sins and man dyes by vertue of this Text either in his own person or in the Man Christ Jesus But how doth all this that Mr. Norton hath said suit to the point in hand and how doth it tend to disprove what the Dialogue affirms 1 Saith he It is certain that Christ was couched in this Text but in his proof he only saith It is very probable that the Tree of life c. in his Proposition he affirmeth It is certain but in his proof he saith It is no more but probable But let his words be a little further examined Where is Christ couched 1 One while he tells us That he is couched and intended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 2 Another while he tells us That it is probable that the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ 3 Another time he saith That Christ must be within the compasse of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. or else the Text is not true All these three considerations laid together do prove that Christ is contained somewhere or no where in some Text or in no Text. And now let the judicious Reader judge what his Proposition and his Proof doth amount to 2 Examine his Discourse a little further The Dialogue affirmeth that Christ falls not within the compasse of this Text in Gen. 2. 17. The Dialogue doth not meddle whether Christ was couched in any other Text. 2 The Dialogue denies that Christ was not within this text as liable to the death there threatned Now then let it bee supposed that Mr. Norton could produce some other text during the first Covenant wherein Christ was included or prefigured Suppose the Tree of life was a figure of him though it be denied both by Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Burges and others as I have noted in Chap. 2. yet except he can prove that Christ was comprehended in this text and that hee was thereby liable to the death there threatned he doth but labor to no purpose 3 Examine his arguing a little further The Dialogue contends that Christ is not contained in the word Thou Thou shalt surely dye Thou Adam in thine own person and thou Adam in thy Posterity saith the Dialogue But not thou in thy Surety shalt dye The word Thou shalt dye intends no more but the person or persons with whom the first Covenant was made But let us consider the Argument that doth arise from Mr. Nortons own words And it may be framed thus Christ falls not within the compasse of the first Covenant of works saith Mr. Norton in page 24. But thou shalt dye intending thereby the persons with whom the first Covenant was made falls within the compass of the first Covenant as he affirmeth in his second Proposition Therefore Christ falls not within the first Covenant of works because the word Thou intends the persons only with whom the first Covenant was made And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the compasse of Gen. 2. 17. SECT IV. IN my former brief Reply to his first Argument I promised a more full Answer to his minor I will repeat his whole Argument as it is laid down in his 10 page Either Christ suffered the Justice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin in Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice But God could not dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice Reply 5. I have sufficiently replied to his major by proving that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam in the first Covenant in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and Chap. 6. c. 2 I say also that his minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the execution of the essential Curse without the violation of his Justice What was sometimes spoken saith he of the Laws of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not Reply 6. 1 Take the death threatned for a spiritual death in sin and then we see by experience that it was formally executed on all mankind from that instant to every one that hath life in the womb even to the end of world though yet it hath pleased God to mitigate the violent outrage of that death not onely to the Elect but also to the Reprobate while they live in this world 2 Take the death there threatned for bodily death and then we see by experience that it was not formally executed at that present neither shall it bee formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement We shall not all dye saith the Apostle 1 Cor.
15. 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell and then we also see by experience that it was not formally executed God doth often dispence with hâ—s peremptory threatnings on Adam but this is certain that what God hath threatned against man for sin he may justly inflict but he is not alwayes bound to it except his threatnings be delivered with an oath Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin but not what shall infallibly be inflicted as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience that God did often repent of his Threatnings and thereupon did alter them from what hee had expressed in his revealed will but not from what he had decreed in his secret will As for example God sent his Prophet Isaiah to Hezekiah saying Set thy house in order for to dye thou shalt dye and not live This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is delivered first Affirmatively to dye Thou shalt dye that is Thou shalt 2 King 20. 1â— surely dye And secondly It is delivered Negatively Thou shalt not live And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threatning was alterable and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer that God would spare his life and give him a son to sin upon his Throne and God heard his prayer and altered his threatning and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will and for the removal of threatned evils 2 King 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations for our prayers Gen. 19. 21. Joh. 3. 10. Es 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the childs life after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee willeth not only to prove us Mat. 15. 23 24 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb 14 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death yet the Apostle saith also That we shall not all dye 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God we see doth often alter his peremptory threatnings 2 Take another Instance God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying Thou art but a dead man that is saith Ainsworth Thou shalt surely dye This threatning saith Traheron on Rev. 4 seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning as that to Adam and yet indeed saith he it had a secret condition which is after expressed in verse 7. Restore her now to her husband if thou restore her not see the condition now expressed which at first was reserved know thou shalt surely dye But take notice of this that when God told Adam If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge thou shalt surely dye there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sentence of death in sin for till Christ was revealed no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatning neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings except they bee delivered with an oath God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters when they have threatned a child or servant that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished yet when the fault is committed they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves or the party offending or to both than if the punishment had been inflicted then who can deny that liberty to God himself who is a most absolute Supreme 3 Take another Instance Jonah said Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traheron not declaring Gods secret determination what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning 4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse when they defile my Tabernacle that is among them This threatning God did sometimes execute and sometimes he did not execute it but did alter it at his pleasure as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the dayes of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 30. 19 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19 20. of them were sick and weak and dyed and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiah were healed and restored to health And so death is threatned in Num. 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dye yet God dispenced with death to King Vzziah and smote him with leprosie and Saul dyed not though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing But I intreat the judicious Reader to take notice that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption where he affirms That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse but that it must be born either by Adam or else by Adams Surety In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase In dying Thou shalt dye is alterable even to men that are not in Christ upon their temporary repentance as in Niniveh and Ahab SECT V. But saith Mr. Norton This threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law for he makes Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law Reply 7 I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature as his moral Law was positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature as the eating of the two Trees was for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature but reserved in Gods secret Decree 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 Unbeleef 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 Psal 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 In his Aphors p. â—8 and in Append. p. 122. of God to dispence with his threatnings he answers thus to 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 Recons peccatoris par 1 c. 1. But saith Mr. Wotton 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 conflict 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 whereon hee would dispence with the rigor of his commination and so let fall or suspend the penalty 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 born them THe Dialogue in pag. 15 16. makes this answer The Evangelist Matthew hath expounded this Text to a quite contrary sense Matth. 8. 17. Matthew saith this Text of Isaiah was fulfilled when Christ took away our infirmities and bare our sicknesses from such as were infirm and sick Not as a Porter bears a burden by laying them upon his own body but by bearing them from the sick by his divine power Mr. Norton in page 35. doth answer to the Dialogue thus The Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us as it is plain saith he from the scope of the Chapter and the comparing of the fourth and fifth verses with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and by bearing those griefs and sorrows be intends Christs bearing them in our stead c. Reply 1. He makes the Reader beleeve that the scope of this Chapter doth speak to this one point namely That Christ did Christ carried our sorrows sicknesses away by his Divine power bear such griefs and sorrows as are due to us which in other places he calls the Essential torments of Hell and thence hee infers
it was a Vindicative punishment to Christ But I would fain know a little more of Mr. Nortons skill how he can call the Afflictions and Punishments which Christ suffered Hell Torments from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing the Holy Ghost doth comprehend them all under the word Chastisement in this very fifth Verse for the Prophet speaks here of all the greatest Sufferings of Christ which he indured in that long action of his Passion from his Apprehension to his Death I say all these sufferings hee comprehends under the word Chastisements but it seems that Mr. Norton hath an Art beyond the Holy Ghost to distinguish them from Chastisements and to rank them under Gods Vindicative Justice let the Reader judge if he do not undertake to be learned above the Holy Ghost in the sense of the word Chastisement The Learned observe that the Hebrew word Musar derived from Jasar doth properly signifie the correction of a Father towards his Son as all these places do testifie Prov. 3. 11 12. Prov. 19. 18. Deut. 8. 5. Psal 94. 12. Jer. 31. 18. and in Heb. 5. 6. Heb. 5. 6 the Apostle doth concur with the Prophet Isaiah That the true nature of all Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements for he saith thus Though he were the Son yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered his learning of obedience is the subjection of a Son to his Fathers chastisement and therefore it follows necessarily That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements they were not inflâ—cted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath and I beleeve that this is a sound truth that will hold water if the Scripture hold Secondly It is further evident that the Sufferings of Christ are farre from being inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath because all his sufferings and all the sufferings of the Saints are founded alike in Gods fatherly love and in that respect there is a reciprocal communion between Christ the Head and all his members in all their sufferings 1 The Elect do partake with Christ in all his sufferings I mean in respect of the kinde of them as these Scriptures do testifie Phil. 3. 10 11. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rom. 6. 2 Cor. 1. 5. Mar. 10. 39. Luk. 22. 28. and therefore hence it follows necessarily that if the sufferings of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kinde of his sufferings Secondly These Scriptures do testifie that Christ the Head doth communicate with all his Members in all their sufferings Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. Es 63. 1 2. And hence it doth necessarily follow that if all the Sufferings of the Members of Christ bee but Chastisements then the Sufferings of Christ must not be ranked in any other form of Justice but where Gods Chastisements are Thirdly It is evident that all the Sufferings of Christ are called but temptations of Trial Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. and Christ himself at the upshot of his life doth call all his former Afflictions but such temptations of Trial wherein his Apostles had been sharers with him Luk. 22. 28. and therefore it doth hence follow that they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath unlesse M. Norton wil prove that the Apostles also did suffer Gods Vindicative wrath which in another place he seems to deny SECT III. But it may be some will here object That though Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements yet they were inflicted on him from Gods Wrath for even Gods Fatherly Chastisements are inflicted from his wrath 2 Sam. 24. 1. therefore if Christ did partake with his people but in their kinde of punishments his suffering must also be from Gods wrath Reply 5. IT doth not follow for Christ might truly partake Christs Sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not from Godâ— wrath as theirs iâ— with them in their punishments in respect of sense and feeling and yet from a differing cause and for a differing end as for example The godly may suffer wounds in their body for sin inherent in a judicial way both from God and Superiours and Christ also may suffer such like wounds and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed but as a voluntary Combater with Sathan and his Instruments for the winning of the Prize even for the Redemption of the Elect and all this without any wrath from the voluntary Covenanters and Masters of the Prize and in this sense only Christ did suffer wounds and bruises namely as a voluntary Combater for in Gen. 3. 15. God declared his Decree that he would put an utter enmity between Sathan and the Seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ and to bruise him and to peirce him as a Malefactor in the foot-soals and to do what he could to disturbe his patience and so to hinder his death from being a Sacrifice but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the ignominious and painful death of the Crosse and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice he overcame Principalities and Powers in it namely in the manner of his death on the Crosse so that the cause of Christs Wounds was not from Gods judicial imputation of our sin and guilt nor from Gods judicial wrath but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Sathan for the breaking of his Head-plot by his constant obedience even to the death of the Crosse for mans Râ—demption so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing causâ— and are for a differing end from â—he sufferings of the Saâ—â—â—â— and so consequently not from Gods wrath as theirs is But I shall inlarge this point in the end of this Chapter and often elsewhere because it hath an undeniable foundation of truth in Gen. 3. 15. and all the Prophets do but comment upon that declared Decree of God SECT IV. But saith Mr. Norton pag. 38. The sufferings of Christ included in this text are not only such wherein Sathan and men were instruments But some of them saith he were immediately inflicted of God without any second means as instruments thereof Hence we read of a wounded spirit Prov. 18. 4. A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8. 12. A broken and a bruised heart Luke 4. 18. The plague of the heart 1 King 8. 38. Reply 6. A judicious Reader may well smile at the unsuitableness of these proofs to his Proposition In his Proposition hee saith That some of Christs sufferings were inflicted None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath immediately of God without any second means as instruments thereof But any judicious Reader may soon see that a wounded spirit a wounded conscience c. do come to bee so wounded by second means namely by the sight of sin and the
a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spiritual and eternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked malefactors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Phi. 2. 9 10 11. Es 5 3 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4. 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood-shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hee gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that
the Hebrew word for bruised or peirced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiah saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgressions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The hand of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Joh. 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Joh. 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Joh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Malefactor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unsound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with Sathan 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Sathan Isa 53. 7. when hee suffered himself to bee apprehended by a band of armed Souldiers and to bee bound Es 53. 7. as a prisoner and as a Malefactor and in this sense Christ saith I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. I will readily venture my life in the combate with that roaring Lion Sathan for the redemption of my sheep And thus Moses did offer his life to redeem the lives of the Israelites when they had forfeited their lives into the hands of Gods justice by worshipping the Golden Calf Exod. 32. Then Moses said I will now go up to the Lord peradventure I shall make Attonement for your sin and he said to God If thou wilt forgive their sin and if not but that they must still dye blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written called the Book of the living Ps 69. 29. and called also the Writing of the house of Israel Eze. 13. 9. And herein Moses saith Ainsworth dealt as a Mediator
between God and men and was a figure of our Mediator Christ who laid down his life for his sheep Job 10. 15. and redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses say the Hebrew Doctors was That hee might dye instead of them and bear their iniquity according to that in Isa 53. 5. He was wounded for our Trespasses For say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation Ex. 32. 32. See Ains in Exod. 32. 32. But in case Moses had been made guilty of their sin by Gods imputation doubtless hee had not been a fit person to offer his life as a Mediator for their lives This resemblance I grant is but very weak because Moses did not offer to give his life as a Mediator for them by a mutual Covenant but of his own head and therefore his offer was refused yet that speech of the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation may somewhat inlighten touching that place in 1 Pet. 3. 18. where it is said That 1 Pet 3. 18. Christ suffered the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God for hee being just in Gods sight ingaged himself acording to a mutual and reciprocal Covenant to enter the Lists with Sathan and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Sathan even to the death of the Crosse that so at last hee might make his soul a sacrifice of Attonement and so bring us to God Mark this Hee is called the just in all his sufferings But hee was not so called in the Jews account for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor Neither could hee bee said to be absolutely just in the sight of God in case God had imputed the guilt of our sins to him in a formal legal way But saith Peter The just suffered for the unjust hee that knew himself to be every way just in the sight of God and of his Law hee entred the Lists and suffered from Sathans enmity and yet still he continued obedient to the death and so continued to bee just And hence wee may see wherein the efficacy of Christs All Christs sufferings were without any imputation of sin from God and therefore he was accepted and so his obedience to the death doth bring us to God sufferings do consist namely in this because in all his conflict with Sathan his patience was not disturbed nor his obedience perverted but to the very last hee approved himself to bee most just and righteous in the sight of God and therefore hee conquered Sathan by righteousnesse as the ancient Divines do very often speak because he strove lawfully according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters And so hee won the prize 2 In his combate with Sathan his obedience was eminent above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that patiently submits his life to bee taken away by justice because hee put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Sathan and in all his sufferings that so hee might please him that had chosen him to bee the Captain of our salvation and in that respect his chastisements which hee suffered from Sathans malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper are said to bee for our peace and healing by obtaining a reconciliation for us and so he doth heal us and bring us to God and so say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the Just maketh Reconciliation It is no evill in it self to bee punished from a voluntary undertaking of a combate but to bee punished in a legal way through a legal imputation of sin and guilt that is a true evill indeed Christ was voluntary in complying with all his sufferings or else they had not been meritorious See also Ch. 6 3 Take notice in some particulars how eminently active Christ was in his sufferings as a voluntary Combater 1 He was lead by the Spirit that lighted on him at his Baptism into the Wildernesse as soon as ever hee was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office on purpose to try Masteries with the Devils temptations which no man else in the world might presume to do but this Captain of our salvation and in this respect all his sufferings may more fitly bee called active sufferings or active passive obedience rather than passive obedience for he put forth a ready and voluntary compliance with them and that by way of anticipation according to Covenant as a voluntary undertaker of the combate for our Redemption and this kind of obedience in his sufferings made his chastisements to be meritorious for our peace and for our healing as the Dialogue shews in p. 49. 2 Take another instance of Christs voluntary obedience in entring into the Lists with Sathan as the Captain of our salvation in all that long businesse that is called his Passion 1 He manifested himself to bee continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to bee for his apprehension and death Luke 12. 50. Joh. 12. 23 27. c. Joh. 13. 1. and in verse 2 3. Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand namely to order himself in every circumstance of his sufferings in his combate with Sathan according to the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for the Text saith That he knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him Joh. 6. 64. Joh. 13. 11. therefore hee was active and provoked Judas at Supper to go out saying unto him What thou doest do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and then saith hee The Son of man goes as it is determined namely by a mutual Covenant Luke 22. 22. and then said he The Prince of this world cometh to incounter with mee with more armed violence than formerly but saith hee Hee hath nothing in me Joh. 14. 30. hee hath no just ground to accuse mee for breaking the Laws of the combate and therefore hee cannot hinder me from winning the prize and when Christ arose to go to the Garden where hee knew hee must bee apprehended he said thus to his Disciples As my Father gave me a Commandement or Appointment so I do Arise let us go hence Joh. 14. 31. It is my Fathers appointment and it is my Covenant that I should now arise to meet these armed Arch-Instruments of Sathan And when Judas and the Souldiers came to apprehend him hee said to the chief Priests This is your hour and the power of darknesse you have full liberty to do your worst against me Luke 22. 53. And when Peter went about to protect him from their power by his sword hee would not bee protected from Sathans power and therefore hee bid him to put up his sword for said hee If I had a mind to be protected from their power I could pray to my Father and he would give me more than twelve Legions of Angels But how then said he shall the Scriptures
the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Azab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did meet the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the best thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendou in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself confesseth thus much in general That the guilt of our sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own confession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do notwithstanding freely grant that he undertook our cause as our voluntary Surety according to the voluntary Covenant and that he took our sins on him thus far namely to make expiation for them and to enter the Lists with Sathan and to suffer the punishments of our sins before hee made his Sacrifice as I have instanced in the punishments that men do voluntarily undergo when they strive for the Mastery with their opposite Champion 2 Hence it follows by the right Translation and Exposition of Isa 53. 6. and Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant made between the Trinity for mans Redemption by the sufferings It is evident by Isa 53. 6. by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and by the death and sacrifice of Christ Mr. Rutherford of the Covenant proves by eleven Arguments in page 290. and by a twelfth Argument in page 307. and by a thirteenth Argument in page 316. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity The Dialogue saith thus in page 28. The true manner how the Lord laid all our sins upon Christ in Isa
for they do not generally so speak Reply 11. This speech they do not generally so speak is an acknowledgement that some do so speak And indeed many late Writers do say That imposition of hands with confession of sin did typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ See Taylor on Types and Weams on the Ceremonial Laws saith thus on the Sin-offering They were commanded to lay their hands upon the head of the Sin-offering Lev 4. to signifie that they laid over their sins upon the Beast which was a type of Christ who was made Asham an offering for sin Isa 53. 10. and was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is The guilt of our sins was imputed to him he was not made a sacrifice only for our sins but hee was made sin for us In these words of Mr. Weams and more also which I omit hee hath not a word of our faith of dependance which was truly typified by Imposition of hands but he doth only say that it typified Gods imputing our sins I could cite many others that run that way on Exod. 29. 10. c. but I had rather though they bee obvious cover their names than publish them But the Dialogue in page 33. disproves their Exposition thus A private mans Imposition cannot represent Gods act The Imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot because the Elders action represents the Churches action neither can the Imposition of the Priests and the High Priests because they were types of Christs Priestly Nature and not of the Father Mr. Norton returns this Answer in page 49. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the mind of Expositors at least generall upon the place Reply 12. It is an easie answer to say they are impertinent but the indifferent Reader may see they are pertinent 2 Saith hee Expositors at least generally do not so expound I wish that fewer did but I do also confess that I do not find though I have made diligent inquiry that any of the Ancient Divines did hold that God imputed our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense as I have shewed in the next Chapter yea I find that many late Writers also have no such imputation but too many have some I have named and many more are obvious to the intelligent and it is evident that generally the Antinomians do hold as Mr. Norton holds I say it is obvious to the intelligent that many do make the imposition of hands on the head of the sacrifice with confession of sin to signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore the reasons of the Dialogue above-named are sound and good for what they are alleaged namely That imposition of hands by the said persons could not represent Gods action But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders and Priests Reply 13. It is well he hath put in If God so pleased I say to him as he said to me in page 103. if hee should not put in that he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence c. But hee had spoken more full to the point if hee had proved that God had ordained such persons in that act of Attonement to represent God the Father but because hee doth no more but barely say so it will not satisfie a doubting conscience But saith Mr. Norton in page 50. The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exod. 21. 2. or at the year of Jubilee Exod. 25. 40. figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free Redemption by Jesus Christ Reply 14. Good reason there is for it because God ordained it so to bee and therein the Master being also a Father to his servant in letting his servant go free was a type of the father of mercies in that case 2 As to his instance of Cyrus in making him both a type of Christ in page 101. and also a type of the Father in his 50 page by his free deliverance is a very doubtful instance for it is questioned by learned Divines whether hee were a type but in case it were proved that hee was indeed a type yet it reacheth not to prove that all those that imposed hands on the head of their sacrifice were types of Gods imputing our sins to Christ which is the very point on Mr. Nortons part to be proved but he slides from that to instances of by matters But saith the Dialogue If you make the act of laying on of hands on the Sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by his imputation then the same act with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sins to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his Resurrection and Ascension as when he made his oblation here upon earth And so by this Doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven 2 The Dialogue propounds another Argument which Mr. Norton skips over and that is this If you make this imposition of hands upon the head of the Sin-offering to represent Gods laying the sins of the Elect upon Christ by his imputation then the same act of imposition upon the head of their sacrifices of praise must have the same signification for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon the head of his sacrifice of praise with confession of his particular mercies received This act must needs signifie the laying of their persons by their faith of dependence on the sacrifice of Christ for the procuring of Gods favourable acceptation of their praises and therfore their laying on of hands on the head of their Sin-offering did likewise signifie their faith of dependence on Christ typified Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 51. We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ Reply 15. This is a good confession and I wish that others would take full notice of it namely that there is not a suffient ground from the typical act of imposition of hands on the sacrifice with confession of sin to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore it follows hence that the translated phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all in Isa 53. 6. is not a sufficient proof of it though it be alleaged for that purpose 2 Seeing Mr. Norton doth at last make this confession why then hath hee laboured to defend the imputation of sin from the said imposition of hands with confession of sin as he hath done But saith Mr. Norton in page 51. Sin was laid upon the Scape-goat not after but before its escape Reply 16. If sin was imputed at all to the
Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed righteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 5. 3. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the sinner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety â—s free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promised Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but
and by 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification doth shew from the judgement of the orthodox that nothing in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is there spoken touching the imputation In Vindiciae fidei part 2. pag. 165. of our sins to Christ and saith he of all the Scriptures that men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observed that this Text is most cleer and pregnant against themselves But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. The Sin offering is so called because sin was typically imputed to it and it is said saith he to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin Reply 2. Mr. Norton affirms it was called sin because sin was typically imputed to it but he brings no Scripture to prove it and therefore it must passe for no better than a fiction 2 The Dialogue shews in page 41. that Psal 40. 6. doth call the Sin-offering by no other addition but Sin but the Dialogue saith that the Apostle in Greek doth expound it for sin in Heb. 10. 6. the Apostle doth joyn the particle For to the word Sin by which means hee doth teach us that the Sin-offering was not typically made sin by confession of sin and by imposition of hands upon the head of it the particle For is not suitable to that sense and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self by joying the word For to the word Sin The Sin shall be killed before the Lord it is most holy Lev. 6. 25. and then it is explained in verse 26. The Priest shall offer it for Sin hence I reason thus if it had been made sin typically by Gods imputation it Lev. 6. 26. could not have been called Most holy neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin Lev. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Lev. 9. 15. Lev. 4. 14. But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of Purification and the Trespass mony is called Sin then Christ was made sin only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 3. A byassed spirit is apt to pick an exception against the cleerest expressions the Dialogue speaks plainly that the water of Purification was called Sin Numb 19. 9. not in respect of any sin that was typically imputed to it nor was it called Sin because it was imployed to any sinful use but because it was ordained in the prescript use of it to cleanse the sinner ex opere operato from all such ceremonial sins as he was defiled with See Ains in Num. 19. 9 12. c. it was called Sin-water as the Sin-offering was called Sin because it was the water of Purification from sin and because it sanctified the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Num. 8. 7 21. and because it figured the blood of Christ which only purgeth the conscience from dead works that is to say from moral sins Heb. 9. 13 14. Now the Heb. 9 13 14. Argument of the Dialogue is plain namely that as the water of purification was called Sin because it did truly cleanse the sinner from the outward contagion of his sins whether moral sins that were done unadvisedly or ceremonial sins for which chiefly the Sin-water was ordained that being cleansed therby they might then approach to Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else not upon pain of cutting off Num. 19. 20. The like Reply I might also make for the Levitical phrase taken from the Redemption-mony that was imployed or part of it at least to buy the publick Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. not because any sin or trespasse was imputed to the mony as if it had been sinfully gotten or sinfully imployed but because it was imployed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings and in this sense God made Christ to be sin and to be a trespasse not by imputing the sins of the Elect to him in a judicial way but by ordaining and constituting him to be the true Sin-offering and to end all Sin-offerings and to finish Trespasse offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousnesse or Reconciliation Dan. 9. 24. instead of the Ceremonial Secondly saith Mr. Norton Then Christ was only made sin figuratively and suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 4. Christ suffered for sin properly according to Gods declared Counsel Covenant and Decree in Gen. 3. 15. in entring the Lists with Sathan but at last hee was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice and in this Sin-offering he bare our sins not really by Gods judicial imputation but figuratively only he bare them from us by procuring Gods Reconciliation No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton doth make Christ to be a sinner properly But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. Wee distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt and an extrinsecal judicial guilt If Thomas saith he be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case of Suretiship to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime And after these words Mr. Norton doth cite sundry instances to this purpose and at last he concludes thus in page 133. I dare almost say saith Grotius a man excelling in this kind of learning That where there is consent there is not any of those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should bee punished with the delinquencie of another Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nayl home 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 In his War Peace l. 2. c. 112 p. 398. some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault 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 Nâ—xâ— praesto 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
Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apâ— Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capro Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech In his seven Candlesticks p. 35â— 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infirmities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sem and Japhet did Noahs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sinâ— And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Oâ—gen Melancthoâ— Bucer Calven Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In moralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his deaâ—h saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee
dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should 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 Priest First to combate with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sâ—nners 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. iâ— 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 righteousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. Ball on the Covenant p. 219. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins aâ— 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. Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification 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 evidence 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 by faith This definition saith he is a great help to the right understanding of justification and this righteousnesse Paul saith Is the righteousnesse of God Ibidem And saith he the Commentaries which are ascribed unto Jerâ—m do herein very well agree They are not subject to the righteousnesse of God that is saith he the absolution of sins And leâ—t wee should in our thoughts mistake the true nature of this righteousnesse of God whereby he makes sinners that are in Christ righteous he gives this special caution to bee marked Ibidem By these things saith he let us gather that this righteousnesse of God is far distant from the righteousnesse that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other Righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their Sacrifices â—estifie But this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness neither ever understood they the true pacifying of God nor wherein it consisted Thus far P. Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. he had spoken of the Righteousness of God afore this in Rom. 1. 17. and
in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more â—eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Iâ—sti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Râ—m 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods meer positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in
making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteteousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Attonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 12. and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be
in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomata for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dan. 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out the filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hâ—brew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10. 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first codemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver
3. and then it follows in ver 4. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us or Rom. 8 4. that the Justification of the Law may be fulfilled in us as Tremelius and the Syriack and the vulgar Latin do translate the Greek word Dicaioma that is here used But here it may be demanded what kind of Righteousness or Justification of the Law doth Dicaioma mean should be fulfilled in us The Answer is Not the righteousness of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret this Text in p. 233. but the righteousness that was typified by the positive Ordinances of the ceremonial Law for the Greek word here used is not Dicaiosune which is the largest word for all kind of righteousness but Dicaioma which is more restrained to the positive Ordinances and which in proper English doth signifie the just Ordinance or the righteous estate of the Law namely either of the Ceremonial or Judicial Laws but especially of the Ceremonial Laws as Mr. Ainsworth sheweth in Numb 31. 21. in Gen. 26. 5. in Deut. 4. 1 14. and in Psal 2. 7. 2 This is the true interpretation of Dicaioma as it is further evident because the Apostle doth use this word to describe the nature of their legal justifications of divine Service in Heb. 9. 1. 10. which he calls carnal justifications in vers 10 as Mr. Dickson and others have well observed 3 This word is also used by the Septuagint for the righteous making of things as well as of persons that were ceremonially unclean for no dead things or unreasonable creatures are guilty of moral sins but by Gods positive Ordinance they may bee guilty of Ceremonial sins Numb 31. 19 20 21 22 23 24. 4 Hence it follows That this kind of positive ceremonial righteousness was typical to such as had faith in the observation of these Statutes to look from the typical ordinances of cleansing and righteous making to the positive sacrifice of Christ as the perfection of all the typical cleansings for that only was ordained to procure Gods eternal Reconciliation in not imputing sin for the cleansing of the conscience from moral sins therefore such as did thus keep the Statutes and Ordinances of Righteousness as Zachary and Elizabeth did Luke 1. 6. should obtain thereby an everlasting Righteousness in Gods sight instead of the Ceremonial And this Doctrine is cleerly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24 25. I say from these â—erses it is plain that their outward Deut. 6. 24 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes did make them righteous or justifie their bodies as fit persons for Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary and for feasting with him as their attoned God in Covenant on the flesh of their Passovers and Peace-offerings and so it typifies true justification and therefore their careful doing of these typical Ordinances had an outward blessing promised as to persons that were outwardly justified as well as they which had faith in Christ had the promise of Gods Reconciliation for their eternal justification 5 This word Dicaioma is used by the Septuagint to express their outward righteousness or justification by their exact care in observing the positive judicial Laws of Moses And for this also see Ainsworth in Exod. 21. 1. Num. 15. 15. But as I said before it is chiefly applyed to the positive Statuâ—es that concerned Gods worship in his Sanctuary and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chiefly respect their judicial trials about their Ceremonial righteousness and their justification thereby in his Sanctuary as these places do evidence in all which the Septuagint use the word Dicaioma for that kind of righteousness chiefly as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25 26. Lev. 25. 18. Numb 27. 11. Numb 30. 16. Numb 31. 21. Deut. 4. 1 5 8 14 40 45. Deut. 5 1 37. Deut. 6. 1 2 17 20 24 25. 2 King 17. 13 34 37. Psal 18. 22. Psal 50. 16. Psal 98. 31. Psal 105. 45. Psal 119. 5 8 12 16 23 33 48 54 71 80 112 117 135 145 155 171. Psal 47. 19. and Ezek. 26. 37. 6 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Justification in Rom. 5. 16. and that most fitly because it doth in Rom. 5. 16. that place set out the true nature of our eternal justification in Gods sight by his gracious forgiveness as being the truth of their legal and typical justifications for the Apostle doth reason here about justification in the same manner as hee did in Heb. 9. for there hee reasons thus If saith hee the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying or justifying of the flesh namely by procuring Gods Attonement as I have explained the matter a little before then saith hee How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works namely by obtaining Gods Attonement for your moral sins as it is the truth of the typical justification And just after this sort doth the Apostle reason in Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness Rom. 5. 16. is of many offences to justification The tongue of Angels cannot express the true nature and form of our eternal justification plainer than in the words of this 16. verse but for further light I will cite Tindals Translation thus And the gift is not over one sin as death came through one sin of one that sinned For damnation came of one sin to condemnation but the gift came to justifie from many sins 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. By the Rightoousness of one namely by the righteousness of Christ in obeying Gods positive Law and Covenant by making his soul a Sin-offering as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this
is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justification with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their uncircumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8 though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14 there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Moses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not
they are not capable of sin in a proper sense and therefore also they are not capable of this kind of righteousness But the Dialogue speaks only of sinners that are reasonable creatures yea and of such sinners as are in Christ and therefore it speaks of such creatures as are capable of pardon and so they are fit subjects of being made righteous by pardon But Secondly Why cannot pardon compleat righteousness hath not God a supreme power by his voluntary Law and Covenant to make it a sinners formal righteousness as well as he had to constitute a fruit tree which he called the Tree of Life to confirm Adam in his created perfections if he had but once eaten thereof We must not look to what is a perfect righteousness to our senses but we must look to Gods positive Ordinance he could tell how to ordain such a righteousness as will best fit sinners Thirdly We see also that by his own voluntary Ordinance he made unreasonable creatures that are not guilty of moral sins to be guilty of ceremonial sins and to be capable also of ceremonial justification as I instanced afore of the Temple it was first polluted by Antiochus and it was afterwards justified by sanctified Priests in carrying out the filth thereof Dan. 8. 14. The like may be said of the defiled leprous house and of the cleansing of it in Levit. 14. And see more for this in Ainsw in Exod. 29. 36. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 212. If you inquire after the essential matter of justification among the The material cause of Justification causes enumerated by the Author behold the Dialogue is speechless and presents you with a form without matter such a being as is neither created nor increated And he takes delight in this Irony because he doth so often repeat it as in p. 212 217 225 237 c. Reply 6 Herein Mr. Norton doth mock at Gods Wisdom and Work in giving a form to the Angels without matter Mr. Ainsworth saith that the Angels have a form without matter and he cites Maymony to concur in that in Gen. 1. 1. Yea the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united to do service to man and yet not be but one person but may continue still to be both distinct matter without form and form without matter As for example when the Angels assumed bodies it was noâ— to give that matter any natural form but it was a miraculous union onely for their present ministry to men And hence you see that the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united and yet remain two distinct things Secondly Mr. Norton doth not only mock at the Dialogue but at sundry other eminent Divines who make no other material cause than the Dialogue doth 1 The Dialogue saith that the subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners and in this the Dialogue follows learned Mr. Wotton And 2. Mr. Wotton doth follow Peter Martyr who makes See P. Martyr in Rom. 3. 26. no other material cause in Justification but beleeving sinners And 3. Saith M. Ball It is to be observed that the Apostle saith And Ball on the Coven p. 219. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself where saith he the world is the subject or matter of reconciliation and by the same reason he makes it the matter of Justification for he makes Justification to be a branch at least of Reconciliation if not the whole as I noted before 4. Mr. John Goodwin doth learnedly dispute against that kind of material cause that Mr. Norton contends for and hee also See Vindiciae fidei par 2. follows Mr. Wotton for the subject matter 5. Mr. Baxter in his Aphorisms p. 213. enumerating the causes saith that a material cause properly it hath none If saith he you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not And in p. 217. he saith thus Christs righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act which hath no matter And in his Reply to Mr. Ayre p. 20. Sect. 4. He saith thus First As matter is proper to substance so Justification being an accident hath no matter are not you of the same mind Secondly As accidents do inhere in the subject so the subject is commonly called their matter In this sense also our righteousness or justification passive is not in Christs righteousness but in our selves and so our selves are the matter for I think it is we that are justified and saith he in another place if any please to make the blood of Christ the matter improperly I contend not And to this I do also give my consent But Mr. Norton makes Christs suffering of hell torments and the second death to be the matter and this matter I cannot consent to But saith Mr. Norton in p. 222. To speak after the stile of the Dialogue if righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by Christs sacrifice of attonement neither then can attonement be a sinners righteousness that which procureth or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Reply 7. 1 The stile of the Dialogue is borrowed very much from the types of the ceremonial Law which were ordained to be our School-master to Christ and I beleeve if more pains were taken to express the point of satisfaction and the point of justification in that stile it would be much for the clearing of the truth 2 It seems that Mr. Norton will have no other righteousness for a sinners formal righteousness but Christs moral righteousness imputed for he makes the Fathers righteousness in being attoned to sinners of no account in the formal cause But saith Mr. Baxter in his Apology to Mr. Blake p. 24. It must be known that the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from their subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us And that can be no other say I but a passive righteousness by Gods merciful attonement in not imputing sin as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances 3. I have already shewed and I think it needful to repeat it again First That it was Christs satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice And secondly That it was Gods Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part which was to be reconciled to sinners by not imputing their sins to them as soon as they are in Christ by faith The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christs combate with Satan performed on his part did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part and both these Righteousnesses together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost which was to proceed from the Father and the Son to convert sinners and â—o unite them to Christ
the torments of Hell are called Chastisements If Mr. Norton had not been transported with a high conceit of his own erronious 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 is 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 hinders 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 Toâ—n which Inference saith he in page 94. what is more abominable the typical reason excepted of signifying or typifying 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 defile 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 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 tree was infamed with a greater curse than any other 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 infamy 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 worthy 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 Moses 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 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 them 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. I 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 me 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 looked 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 bafest sort of Malefactors to death by hanging and after death to let them hang for a time to be a spectacle of ignominy and reproach 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 scourgâ— 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 greater curse of reproach than was by any other sort of capital death that was in use among the Jews or Romans Secondly I come now to examine the time of their burial And thirdly Whether the Land was defiled in case they continued unburied till after Sun-set For Mr. Norton saith That in case the body that was banged did continue unburied till after Sun-set it caused the whole land to be defiled ceremonially Reply 7. The time of the burial of the person hanged is not by the Text Deut. 21. 23. limited to sun-set as Mr Norton The time of the burial of the person hanged might be after sun-set provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight doth wrest the words of the Text to speak But the time limited in the Text is this He shall not hang all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him the same day Mark the phrase He shall not hang all night Hence it follows that he might hang some part of the night so he did not hang all night that is to say he might hang some part of the night provided they did bury him within the
limits of the same natural day for the words of the Text are thus He shall not hang all night but thou shalt bury him the same day And I have at large shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time that the same natural day was not ended till midnight and see more in Sect. 8. In like sort the Peace-offerings were commanded to be eaten the same day in which they were offered Lev. 7. 15. and yet they might be eaten after sun-set as the speech of the Harlot doth shew in Prov. 7. 9. and for this see Prov. 7. 9. Ains in Lev. 7. 15 18. and in Lev. 22. 30. Secondly in this particular case of hanging we see that Joshua did permit the King of Ai to continue hanging on the tree until the Sun was down Josh 8. 29. and therefore seeing he did Josh 8. 29. not command his carkass to be taken down from the tree untill the sun was set it follows that his carkass could not be buried before sun-set And thus his crutch is fallen and therefore all his conclusions that are built thereon are fallen with it â—a his language is to me Thirdly Though Mr. Norton do cite Junius to his typical sense yet I find by conference that Junius not many lines before those words cited by Mr. Norton doth plainly deny that the carkass See Junius paralel l. 2. paral 51. thus hanged did defile the land although it remained unburied after sun-set he doth rather place the defiling of the land in the act of the Judges in case they suffered the carkass to continue unburied that day after the justice of the Law was satisfied which was ordinarily satisfied with that days infamy and to this purpose also doth the Geneva note speak But I will presently produce another reason why the Judges were exhorted not to defile the land Fourthly It is very probable by his words in pag. 102. that Mr. Norton doth steer his judgement in this point of defiling the Land by following the sense of a corrupt Translation I mean by following the latter Editions of King Jameses Translation The latter Editions of King Jameses Translation of Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions for the latter Editions are corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions It is most likely that some left-handed person that happily was of Mr. Nortons judgement did venture too boldly to alter the Translation from the integrity of the first Editions for the first Editions both the Church Bible and some others do run thus His body shall not remain all night upon the tree But thou shalt in any wise bury him that day for he that is hanged is accursed of God At the end of this sentence He that is hanged is accursed of God they set a colon or two pricks And then follows another distinct sentence thus That thy Land be not defiled But in the latter Editions there is a great corruption made for first The colon is omitted And secondly There is a parenthesis added to inclose the former sentence thus For he that is hanged is accursed of God This sentence thus inclosed doth quite alter the sense and makes the exhortation to the Judges to concur with Mr. Nortons sense thus Thou shalt in any wise bury him that day that thy land be not defiled Now according to this corrupt Translation and the onely reason given why the person hanged must be buried the same day is because else the land would be defiled But put out the parenthesis and put in the colon as it was in the first Editions and then the words will have a quite differing sense I grant that the leaving out of the colon might happen through the Printers over-sight but the inclosing of that sentence in a parenthesis could not be done by the Printers overfight but doubtless that was done on purpose by some left handed person as I observed before I doe therefore earnestly intreat the judicious Presbytery to make search into this matter and to cause a Reformation in the next Editions according to the integrity of the first Fifthly Let the Text in Deut. 21. 23. be read according to the first Editions and then it will follow that the onely true reason why he that hanged on a tree must be buried the same day is not because else the land would be defiled but because he that is hanged the curse of God so the Hebrew is translated in the margin But there is in this sentence a defect or a want of some word which our Translaters have supplied in the Text by the word is and so they make the Text to run thus He that is hanged is the curse of God But the Seventy See Torshel on Justif p. 131. with Aquila and Theodotian read it thus He is the curse of God that is hanged and Symachus reads it thus because for the blasphemy of God he is hanged And the Chalde paraphrase doth render it thus for because he sinned before the Lord hee is hanged These several Translations and Expositions are considerable But yet still for all this it is a question of some moment in what sense hee that is hanged is called the curse of God I he still the object of Gods curse upon the land as he was whilst he lived in the practise of his sin before his hanging surely that cannot be seeing justice was executed and therefore it follows that he is now called the curse of God because his hanging so long upon a tree to be gazed on as a visible curse was to shew their greater detestation of his sin and so to satisfie the curse of Gods Justice and so to pacifie his wrath and so to avert the curse which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case the Magistrates had neglected this point of justice but because the visible curse of his sin was thus eminently put upon him by the Magistrates by hanging up his dead body on a tree that he might be the Spectacle thereof as long as the Sun gave any light The Judges were admonished not to turn Justice into cruelty by letting his dead body to continue hanging upon the tree all night but in any wise to bury him that day namely before that natural day was ended which ended at midnight as I have shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time and the reason is added Because he that is hanged the curse of God namely because he that is hanged hath born the visible curse and thereby hath averted the curse of God which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case this malefactor had been suffered to live still in his sin and so justice being satisfied he must be buried out of sight that day And hence it follows that he was called the curse of God The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was because his stoning to death and his hanging on a tree afterwards had appeased
Gods anger and so removed the curse from the Land after that Gods justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia as the sacrifice that was ordained to attone God for sin was called sin So then the true reason why the Judges were admonished not to let his carkass that was hanged continue hanging all night but to bury him the same day to cover and hide his carkass in the earth from further publick shame and ignominy because he had already satisfied Justice by hanging on a tree to be gazed on as long as the day light made him a spectacle which at some time of the year might be till it was near midnight where the natural day endeth So then the defect or want in the Hebrew Text may be supplied by any word or words that do explain the true sense as well as by is As thus thou shalt in any wise bury him the same day for he that is hanged to be gazed on as long as the day gives light to be gazed on hath appeased God and born the curse from the land and thereby he hath made attonement for the curse and so procured Gods favor to the Land And it is most evident by three remarkable examples that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure attonement to the land First The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ring-leaders of them that had coupled them to Baal Peor and to hang them up before the Lord against the Sun Numb 25. 4. Numb 25. 4. 1 It must be done before the Lord namely openly by the publick Judges for God is still with them in the cause and judgement 2 Chron. 19. 6. Deut. 17. 1. Psa 82. 1. 2 It must be done against the Sun namely in the open view of all persons as long as the Sun did give any light upon the face of the earth and because Phineas did execute judgement upon some of the chief of these sinners therefore in ver 13. he is said to make attonement for Israel Secondly David commanded the seven sons of Saul to be hanged up before the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 9. namely by the sentence of justice 2 Sam. 21. 9. but the Gibeonites said to David in v. 6. We will hang them up to the Lord namely to appease his fierce anger against the land and in that respect their hanging is said in ver 3. to make attonement and to this sense the Chalde paraphrase doth render the sense of Deu. 21. 23. for because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged namely to appease his wrath And all that are hanged before the Lord that is to say openly by the sentence of these Judges are said also to be hanged up to the Lord to appease his wrath and so both phrases do demonstrate the same thing and thus to do Justice and Judgement upon sinners is more acceptable to the Lord to attone his wrath than sacrifice Pro. 21. 3. Thirdly Achan was a cursed person in his death though his dead body was not hanged but burnt with fire because he had sinned in the cursed thing namely in the consecrated gold which God had cursed to any that did purloin it and therefore God said unto Joshua I will be with you no more except yee destroy that cursed person Josh 7. 12. For Israel hath transgressed the Covenant which I commanded them ver 11. But why doth he say that Israel transgressed seeing Achan alone sinned in a secret manner The Answer is Because it was Gods will to make such a supream voluntary Law and Covenant with all Israel that if but one man sinned in the excommunicate thing it should involve all Israel under the curse Josh 6. 18. untill they had purged themselves by the use of means to find out the transgressor but as soon as they had found out the transgressor and had executed Justice and buried his burnt body under a heap of stones the Lord was appeased to the people and turned from his fierce wrath Josh 7. 25 26. and so the Camp was cleansed Hence I do once more conclude that the onely true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was not because else the Land would be ceremonially defiled as Mr. Norton doth argue but because one days open hanging on a tree as long as the light did last to be gazed on did satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie his wrath and therefore the Judges are admonished not to let his body hang all night but in any case to bury him the same day because he that is thus hanged hath born the curse that else would have fallen on the land and the Jews say That as soon as a Malefactor had satisfied justice by his See Trap on Gal. 3. 13. death then the tree whereon he was hanged the sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed must be buried with them that no evill memorial of them might remain to say this was the tree sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed But still this must bee remembred that in some extraordinary cases God permitted the Magistrates to let some notorious Malefactors to hang on a Tree not only for one day but also for many dayes together and yet the land was not defiled but cleansed thereby of which see more in n. 8. 6 Having now finished the former reason why the person hanged must be buried the same day namely because in the ordinary course of justice one dayes hanging on a tree did satisfie Gods justice and so remove the curse from the land as it is expressed in this sentence He that is hanged hath born the curse of God And at the end of this sentence the Geneva and Tindal have made a full stop and the other Translations have made a colon or a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of
cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the Second-death which is this namely That the Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like sort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inner-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hanged are se infamed that the carkass of such in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall de file the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21. 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4 Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters from him in his life-time about this controversie whereby I know that his judgement was not throughly established one way or other and I know by some expressions of his that he could not hold that Christ suffered Hell-torments though he did hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and I find that other learned Divines do hold as he did namely That Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and yet they deny that he suffered Hell-torments and the Second-death which is also directly contrary to Mr. Nortons fundamentals for hee holds just satisfaction by a just suffering of the essential Curse of Hell-torments Dr. Preston saith That the curse of God doth consist in four things 1 When God doth separate a man from grace goodness and In his Treitise of Love p. 176. holiness 2 When he is separated from the presence of the Lord from the joy from the influence and from the protection of God 3 When he is cursed in outward things 4 When he shall suffer the eternal curse at the day of judgement But now was Christ thus cursed of God Methinks it should make a godly man
tremble to say so and yet Mr. Norton approves of Luther for saying so in page 92 93. who durst alledge this place saith Luther Accursed is every one that hangs on a Tree and apply it to Christ Like as Paul then applied this sentence to Christ even so may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27. Chapter of Deuteronomy but also may gather up all the Curses of Moses Law together and expound the same of Christ for as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his person so is he also in all the rest and as he is guilty in this general Law in that he is made a curse for us and hanged upon the Cross as a wicked man a blasphemer a murderer and a traitor even so is he guilty also in all others for all the Curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him Hence it follows from Luthers words approved by Mr. Norton that the said Curses mentioned by Dr. Preston were laid upon Christ or else Mr. Norton must not approve of this speech of Luther Mr. Rutherfurd propounds this Question How could Christ In Christs dying p. 560 561. be a Curse There is saith he a thing intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed and there is a thing extrinsecally and effectively cursed Now saith he none but he that sinneth is intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed for in this regard it is a personal evil Christ was not intrinsecally abominable and execrable to God c. This distinction of extrinsecally and effectively cursed was contrived only for the sake of Christ or else doubtless hee would have given some other instance of his assertion I grant That Mr. Rutherfurd did hold that Christ did suffer the moral Curse as Mr. Norton doth But yet he held it arbytrary to the Lawgiver to execute the curse on Christ rather in the equivalency than in the proper kind of it and therefore he saith That some punishments may well bee changed the one for the other as Gods hating and abominating the sinner was changed into Gods forsaking of Christ when he complained My God my God c. And secondly saith he Christ was not intrinsecally cursed as the sinner who sinneth in person is and then he concludes that the kind of punishment which Christ suffered was arbytrary to the Lawgiver But Mr. Norton denies it to be arbytrary for saith he in page 10. The Omnipotent had so limited himself by his Law Mr. Norton holds satisfaction by Christs suffering the essential curse in kind and yet he holds alteration to equivalency in Gen. 2. 17. that he could not alter and saith hee in page 146. 143. though in many typical redemptions God accepted a price and spared life yet not so in the Antitype No price saith he can dispence in the case of the Antitype And saith he in page 122. Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God spared him nothing of the due debt he had not the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering that was due according to justice And saith he in page 23. he suffered the whole essential properly penal death of the Curse that is the whole essential punishment thereof was executed upon Christ By these fundamental Propositions he must reject any alteration to the way of equivalency and yet he is sometimes forced to flye to equivalency as I have noted it in Chap. 4. I confess I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth keep no more exactly to his principles of payment in kind but that he is forced to flye sometimes to equivalency The rest that follows in Mr. Norton on Gal. 3. 13. is but the same in true substance that hath already been examined and confounded And that which follows about the Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ I have examined at the end of my Examination of Psal 22. 1. and Mat. 27. 46. CHAP. XVI SECT 1. Mr. Norton propounds this Question in p. 56. How do you prove this sorrow and complaint of Christ to have proceeded from the fear of a bodily death Reply 1. THe Dialogue doth prove it by two Reasons First Saith the Dialogue do but consider what a horrid thing to true humane nature the death of the body is and then consider that Christ had a true humane nature like to all other men except in the point of sin and therefore why should not he be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could bear without sin Mr. Norton doth Answer thus Because regular affections such as Christs were moved according to the nature of the object so much therefore as bodily death is a less evill than eternal death so much the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithall is less than that trouble which it is capable of suffering in case of conflicting with eternal death Reply 2. He saith That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that the regular trouble of his humane nature was in relation to that death They may beleeve his bare word that please and he knows that the Dialogue doth all along deny it and I have also taken away his proof in other places therefore the reason of the Dialogue doth stand good and firm still The second Reason of the Dialogue is this Do but consider that all mankind ought to desire and endeavor to preserve their natural lives as much as in them lies in the use of means in obedience to the sixt command and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man could not prevent his death by the use of means he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Mr. Norton in p. 57. doth answer thus It is more than manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning meer natural death Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not subject to death as ours is In his War Peace ch 36. and I have cited Mr. Ball to this sense in ch 17. at Reply 25. Christ both in his combate with Satan also in the formality of his death by his Priestly order did all by way of Covenant and not by condition of nature Reply 3. It is more then manifest that he was to be troubled with the fear of a bodily death more than any other man because the constitution of his nature and natural spirits was more pure than the nature of other men and therefore he must manifestly abhor it more than other men for he was not made subject to death by nature as all other men are all other men by reason of original sin are born the bondslaves of Satan Death is their Birth-right and therefore they abhorre it not in a regular manner but with a dull slavish spirit but because Christs nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin therefore he was not born the bondslave of death Death hath no right saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121.
where there is no sin unless we will say that God doth punish the innocent and hence it follows that the pure constitution of his nature must needs be toubled with the regular fear of his bodily death more than other men can be His death saith Grotius was not determined by any Law as Mr. Norton affirms but by agreement and as it were by special Covenant made with his Father who upon that condition promised him not onely the highest glory but a seed to serve him for ever This speech of Grotius is worth our marking And in ch 2. I have shewed more at large that the death of Christ was a death of Covenant and not of condition of nature as ours is And in relation to his Covenant and to the rich reward of his death by Gods Covenant his rational soul did always desire to die but yet that desire did no way hinder his natural and vital soul from fearing the ill usage of his pure nature by Satan and his instruments Secondly I find this to be a received maxim among the learned that the bodily pains which Christ indured were See Mr. Burges on Just p 8. Dr. Williams in his seven Golden Candlestick p 483. more sensible to his nature than the like pains can be to other men because of the most excellent temper and tender Constitution of his body and therefore his vital and sensitive soul which is the bond of union between the immortal soul and the body was quicker in operation than other mens spirits can be with the dread and fear of his ignominious death That speech of our Saviour is emphatical in Heb. 10. 5. A Heb. 10. 5. The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of fear shame and pain than other men can be body hast thou prepared me namely by sending the Holy Ghost to prepare the seed of the woman for my humane nature that it may be of a more excellent temper and tender constitution than any other mans can be and therefore that it may be touched with the objects of fear ignominy and pain more eminently than other mens can be and therefore as it behoved God to prepare such a body on purpose for him so it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to be touched in an eminent manner with the sence of our passions and infirmities that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest and so in particular he must be eminently touched with the fears of death Heb. 2. 14. 17. And so it became God the Father to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through sufferings and how else did it become God to consecrate him but by making his obedience perfect through sufferings and therefore said Christ to God A body hast thou prepared me thou hast moulded it and organized it on purpose to be touched with the tender sense and feeling of mans infirmities in my sensitive soul the better to exemplifie the perfection of my patience and obedience through all my sufferings It is no marvel then that seeing the constitution of his body and spirits was thus transcendently tender that his soul-troubles are expressed by all the Evangelists to be more than other mens can be as concerning their meer bodily sufferings and death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with natural death conflict also often with eternal death Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death how then do you say without any distinction that he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Reply 4. I reply to the Interrogation that Christs troubled fear of death was wholly Regular but other mens fear is for Christ feared his ignominious death after the rule of fear not after the example of this or that man the most part irregular Christs fear therefore must not bee compared to this or that particular mans fear as Mr. Nortons kind of arguing doth import to the lesse wary Reader but his fear must be considered in relation to that disease of evil which was opposite to the perfection of his nature for by the rule of Gods Creation Adam and Christ were perfect in nature and not subject to curses and therefore according to the Rule of Contraries the more ignominy and pains of death they must suffer the more they must abhor it more than other men that are the slaves of death by nature the soul and body in the first creation were united in all perfection after Gods Image and therefore all ignominy torments and death must needs be an abhorring in an higher degree than it can be to other men and therefore it was most suitable to Christs regular constitution to manifest his exceeding troubled fear of his ignominious and painful lingring death more than any other man can do in a regular manner But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death and be doth very often charge the Dialogue with this expression of a natural death as in page 156 158 159 164 c. Reply 5. This I beleeve is a false charge I do not remember Christs death was not a natural death that the Dialogue doth any where call the death of Christ a natural death but it doth carefully shun that term as altogether unfit because the death of Christ was supernatural The Dialogue holds that Christ was not subject to a natural death as sinners are from the curse of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. as I have shewed a little before and shall do it again towards the end of this Chapter Secondly But yet the Dialogue doth often call the death of Christ a true bodily death in opposition to Mr. Nortons spiritual death with this explanation that his death was such a kind of bodily death that it was also a mediatorial death and sacrifice If Mr. Norton had not been more than ordinary blinded with prejudice against the Dialogue he could not so often have mistaken the words and sense of the Dialogue as I have noted it also elsewhere yea in page 153. he saith That Christ suffered not only a natural but a spiritual death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christs meer inability as man to prevent death by the use of means or other mens inability thereto and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life but on the contrary to give up themselves to death such as was the present case of Christ and was long before the case of Isaak and sometimes hath been the case of Martyrs who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy cannot bee looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death Reply 6. I shall speak the briefer
to this inference because I have already shewed in Reply 3. That the humane nature of Christ was priviledged from death and from the fear of death and from all other miseries by nature But yet such was his infinite and eternal love to the Elect that were fallen in Adam that according to the Council of the Trinity he entred into a Covenant with his Father to take upon him the seed of the deceived woman with our infirmities and to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan that had a Commission given him to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious death and therefore he covenanted to manifest the truth of his humane nature in fearing and abhorring such a kind of usage for the salvation sake of all the Elect And saith Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 342. God by a permissive decree appointed the crucifying of the Lord of life but as touching his approving and commanding will he did neither will the crucifying of his Son but forbids and hates it as execrable murther 1 Then consider Christs troubled natural fear of death materially with all the circumstances of ignominy and tortures from the Devil and his Instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. and then it was his duty to stir up his sensitive soul to be tenderly and eminently touched with a trembling fear and with a manifest abhorring of this kind of usage 2 But consider his ignominious and painful death formally namely with the reward that was annexed to it by Gods Covenant which was that he should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect and then I say It was the duty of his rational soul not to fear but earnestly to desire to perform this combate with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst and therefore in this regard he said I delight to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Heb. 10. And I desire to eat this Passover this Type of my death before I suffer 3 Christs humane nature knew perfectly by the revealed will of God in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil against him with an express permission to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the foot-soals and in this combate hee knew it was the declared will of God that hee should encounter him not with the power of his God-head but with his humane nature only as it was accompanied with our infirmities of fear sorrow c. and therefore by his Covenant hee was bound to express and manifest his troubled natural fear of such an unnatural usage and accordingly he declared it to his three Apostles that he took with him to be witnesses that he did then begin to be sorrowful and very heavy saying unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to the death Mat. 26 37 38 39. Mat. 26. 38 39. and then he went a little further from them and fel on his face and prayed saying O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me and this request he made three times over because it was of absolute necessity that that cup should pass from him namely the cup of his natural fear I have shewed in the Dialogue page 46. that the word Cup is put for a measure or portion of any thing either of joy and comfort or of ignominy and pain or of fear and sorrow and at this time he was very heavy and sorrowful and therefore the cup that he doth so earnestly deprecate is the cup or measure or portion of his present natural fear Hee doth not in this place as I apprehend deprecate his ignominious and painful death but the fear and dread which his sensitive soul had of it at this present and he was heard and delivered from his natural fear or else hee could not have laid down his life by his own will desire and power as hee had covenanted Joh. 10. 17 18. But as soon as hee had obtained a confirmation by his sweating prayers against this his natural fear then when the band was come to apprehend him he was fearless and said unto Peter Put up thy sword again into its place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more Mat. 26. 52 53 54. then twelve legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that say Thus it must be The Scriptures in Gen. 3. 15. c. say that I must bee thus apprehended condemned and executed by the power of Satan and his instruments Thus it must be I must be thus used as you shall now see mee to bee by these Arch-instruments of Satan yea thus it must bee of necessity even by the necessity of the voluntary Decree and Covenant and therefore I must bee voluntary also in the performance of this combate and not admit of any obstruction to my Combatter by thy sword he must by Gods declared permission have his liberty to do his worst to provoke my patience and I must do my duty by continuing constant in my obedience through all his assaults But John doth relate our Saviours Joh. 18. 11. words to Peter thus Put up thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it namely that portion of my ignominious and painful sufferings which my Father hath appointed mee to undergo as hee hath declared it in Gen. 3. 15. Here you see that Christ did not now dread this cup of his ignominious and painful sufferings as hee did the fear of this cup in Matth. 26 37. Then it was necessary before he prayed that his natural infirmities of fear and sorrow should appear but now it was as necessary after he had obtained his request that his natural infirmities should not appear and therefore he said to Peter Shall I not drink it 4 I have shewed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christs desire that the cup might pass from him was no sin because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm for if his death had been required by a moral command then his desire that the cup might pass from him had been a sin and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also but Gods command was a meer positive command and that kind of command saith Mr. Rutherfurd did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing hee submitted his desire to Gods will The like instance hee gives of Abrahams desire when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies as the Dialogue doth that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments hee expounds it â—s the Dialogue doth on the Covenant page 362. But still I rather think
as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without sin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Passion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 148. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sin And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether false that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it outwardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs of Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as hee did I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal 22. 1. We further briefly say That Christ was pleased to yeeld to sense or feeling so far 1 That he might shew himself a perfect true man a thing not easily beleeved as appears by the multitude of Heresies about this matter that sprung up soon after the first plantation of the faith there being no greater evidence to ordinary judgement at least of his perfect humanity than his being subject to the common infirmities of men Secondly To keep us from fainting and despair in the greatest trials combats and afflictions whether spiritual or corporal when God seems to forget us And thirdly As for them that think unpassionateness the Aulus Gellius a known ancient Writer in his 19. book of Noctes Atticae ch 1. 12. greatest evidence of magnanimity I commend the Disputes of two famous Philosophers recorded by Aulus Gellius Thus far speaks the said Annotation Fourthly this is observable That though many Martyrs have through the grace of constancy undergone the pains of death with joy or with little sign of their natural
his cup that is to say of the same bitter portion of death 2 Hee tells them That they must be baptized with his baptism that is to say They must be put to death by the malice of Tyrants as he must be and this is expressed by the metaphor of Baptism for baptizing is a diving or drowning of the whole body under water and therefore Christ ordained Baptism as a typical sign of drowning the body of sin in his blood but the baptizing of Tyrants was used for no other end but to drown mens bodies to death and in this respect Christ saith I am entred into the deep waters Psal 69. 2 15. and in this very sense the Apostle saith Else what shall they do that are baptized for dead namely what shall they do that are baptized with death as Martyrs are if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptized for dead 1 Cor. 15. 29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptised 1 Cor. 15. 29. with death if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truths sake being therin conformable to the death of Christ Phil. 3. 10 11. By these two expressions saith the Dialogue which are synonima or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should bee namely no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of Tyrants And hence it follows 1 That the troubled fear which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ in the Garden must bee understood of his natural fear of death and not of his fear of his Fathers wrath 2 Hence it follows that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from mans wrath and malice incited by the Devil according to Gods decree declared in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals Mr. Norton in page 62. doth thus answer to the Dialogues Exposition Herein saith he is a fallacy confounding such things as should bee divided This Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. Reply 11. It is most evident that Mr. Nortons distinction is a fallacy because it confounds things that differ for it confounds the death of Christs immortal soul with the death of his body so he makes Christ to suffer two kinds of death formally and so consequently he makes Christ to make two kinds of satisfaction formally But saith the Dialogue No other death but his bodily death is to be understood by Mar. 10. 39. our larger Mar. 10. 39. Mr. Norâ—on saith that Christ suffered a twofold death in p. 155 70. 174. and he makes his immortal soul to be spiritually dead in p. 159. and makes it the second death in p. 115. Annotation doth fully concur with the Dialogues exposition on Matth. 20. 22 23. without any such exception as Mr. Norton makes from Piscator But I wonder that Mr. Norton dares honor Piscator so much as to take this exposition upon trust from him alone seeing he makes the form of justification to lye only in remission of sins which opinion of his Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie and yet now he so much honors Piscator as to cite his judgement above for his exposition of this Text. But for the better trying out of the truth let us a little more narrowly search into the sense of Mar. 10. 39. by a cleer conference with the context which I account to be a good rule for the trying out of a sound exposition 1 James and John the sons of Zebedee desired of Christ that the one might sit at his right hand and the other at his left in his glorious Monarchy 2 Thereupon Christ demanded of them Can yee drink of the cup that I shall drink of they said We can then Christ replied Yee shall indeed drink of the cup that I shall drink of Hence it follows That seeing the cup of Christ was filled with the vindicative wrath of God as Mr. Norton affirms then James and John must drink of the same cup for said Christ to them Yee shall drink of the same cup that I shall drink of But I think Mr. Norton himself will say that they did not drink of the cup of Gods vindicative wrath but of the cup of an ignominious and violent death only Therefore it hence follows by the like consequence that the death of Christ was of the same kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 63. Christ suffered both as a Martyr and as a Satisfier the sons of Zebedee saith he drank of the cup of Martyrdome not of the cup of Satisfaction or Redemption James and John were asleep whiles Christ was drinking that cup. Reply 12. I grant that Christ suffered as a Satisfier but the only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction was from the mutual Covenant that was made between the Trinity it was their agreement that made the death of Christ to be a sacrifice of full satisfaction or to be the full price of The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity our redemption as I have shewed also in Chap. 9. but because God made no such Covenant with the sons of Zebedee therefore though they drunk the cup of a violent death as Christ did yet it was not for satisfaction it was no more but the cup of Martyrdome in them But as I said before because the death of Christ was a death of Covenant it was not only a death of Martyrdome but it was a death of satisfaction also Secondly I have often shewed from the first declared Will and Covenant of the Trinity in Gen. 3. 15. that Christ covenanted to take upon him our nature of the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature to break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient in his combate notwithstanding Satans foul play to provoke him to some impatience and in that obedience he covenanted to make his soul a sacrifice which God covenanted to reward with the redemption of all the Elect and this was fully declared unto Adam by a typical sacrifice and God gave the Devil full liberty to do his worst to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to prevent his death from being a sacrifice and so to preserve his Head-plot from being broken and this is comprehended in that sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals but God could not have declared all this both to the Devil and unto Adam unless the second person had beforehand covenanted to undertake this conflict with the Devil and his instruments and unless God the Father had also covenanted that the obedience of the seed of the woman both in his conflict with Satan and in his death and sacrifice should break the Devils Head-plot and so should thereby merit
and the Band had seized on him yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou said he to Peter that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall set before mee more than twelve legions of Angels 5 When he was upon the cross and cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Doth not the very fore-front of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God Mat. â—7 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father as we see and knew his father heard him ever then surely he had comfort in his Father ever yea if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name when ever he did mention the name else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christs mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God when he began to be amazed and to be very heavy as Mr. Norton doth affirm SECT 5. Christs Agony and Luk. 22. 44. Examined MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed saith the Dialogue it will appear that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath but from his natural fear of death onely because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure as the Prophets did foretel Add to these pains of his mind his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death for a time and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer until he had overcome it Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Reply 19. I have already replyed to this very answer in substance in the first Section of this Chapter But yet I reply further with the Dialogue That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature together with our true natural but yet sinless infirmities Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions he could not chuse but abhor death more than any sinful man and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem but at his last Supper and in the Garden when his death was nigh at hand he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it first to his Disciples and then to God in his prayers Matth. 26. 37 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him to condemn him and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross as a sinful malefactor I say the consideration of this usage could not chuse but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ than the like can do to us because of the pure constitution of his nature as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation as the pure nature of Christ might do and did and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours But saith he Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death which is denied But in case such a Tenent were indeed held forth in the book of God then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon iâ— seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction but the contrary is evident to me namely that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan and upon his sacrifice as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Savior fell into such an Agony the night before his death seeing it was not an easie thing to alter the property of nature from a desire to live to a desire to die and that not for his own end and benefit but for the sake of the Elect onely and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will he must observe the due time of every action and so on as it follows in Mr. Nortons citation in page 64. 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his natural death only is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly It 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 Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 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 â—xemplified 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 Agony 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 death 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 fervent 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 faith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in that which hee feared Observe I pray That Dr. Hall doth speak this of Christs natural fear of his bodily death And secondly This also is worthy of due observation that Christ must overcome his natural fear of death before hee could make his vital soul a sacrifice according to Gods command for it was Gods command and his own Covenant also that he should not suffer any to take away his vital soul from him But secondly to lay it down of himself namely as a sacrifice by his own will desire and power but this his humane nature could not do until hee had overcome his natural fear and he had no better way to overcome his natural fear than by his fervent wrastling prayers as it is expressed in Luke 22. 44. and Heb. 5. 7. Hee might not in this case use the power of his Godhead to make his nature impassible because hee had covenanted to enter the Lists with his Combater Satan in the infirmities of our humane nature and he had no better way to get a confirmation like Armor of proof to his humane nature against this fear of his unnatural
should be more hard and difficult to be performed than Adams was by infinite degrees and that was first to enter the Lists with Satan and his instruments and not to bee disturbed in his patience but to observe the laws of the Combate in all obedience and at last when the Devil had done his worst he should then make his vital soul a sacrifice in breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power and all this is comprehended in this sentence Hee shall break thy head and by this speech God did fully forewarn the Devil that he might use his best skill without any restraint to do what he could to disturb the patience of this seed of the woman either by his sinful imputations or by his ignominious usage or by his cruel tortures and so might do his utmost to interrupt his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and that so by this means he might save his Head-plot from being broken and accordingly the Devil did often stir up his Arch-instruments to disturb his patience but especially when he entred into Judas to fetch a band of armed men with swords and staves to apprehend him as a notorious Malefactor and stirred up the Scribes to accuse him as a most sinful Malefactor worse than the murtherer Barabas and he stirred up Herod and his Souldiers to mock him and Pilate to condemn him to the most shameful cursed death of the Cross and all this evil usage is included in this sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And in this Combate this is chiefly to be marked That the Devil did use all the foulest play that hee could devise to disturb the patience of this Seed of the woman that was compassed about with our true natural affections and passions and with a tender sense of every evil for the Devil knew that if he could by all his foul play but once have disturbed his patience that then he had perverted him in the course of his obedience and then hee knew that hee should have spoyled his death from being a sacrifice and then he knew that hee should have preserved his first grand Head-plot from being broken and then the Devil would have triumphed over Christ upon the Cross and over all mankind as he did when he first brought Adam to disobey Gods positive prohibition in eating the forbidden fruit 2 God was pleased further to declare That it was the plot of the Trinity that the second person should take unto him the seed of the deceived sinful woman and that he should enter the Lists with his enemy Satan in that nature as it was accompanied with true natural passions and not in the power of his divine nature and therefore it was of necessity that he must manifest the truth of his humane nature by his true natural affections and passions in fearing and sorrowing and abhorring his vilde ignominious usage by his Combater Satan and if it be marked Christ doth as much complain of his shameful usage as of his painful usage and that he saith in Psal 69. 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and yet still that notwithstanding all Satans vilde usage hee should continue obedient to the very last even to the most shameful death of the Cross and that hee should then make his vital soul a sacrifice of Redemption and Reconciliation for all the Elect. And thus as by the demerit of Adams disobedience to a meer positive Law The Many even the Elect as wel as the Reprobate were made sinners so by the merit of the obedience of the second Adam to Gods meer positive Law in his combate with Satan and in his death and sacrifice The Many are made righteous Rom. 5. 18 19. that is to say Rom 5. 18 19. They are justified from the condemning power of sin by Gods Reconciliation for the sake of Christs obedience in his combate of sufferings and in his death and sacrifice And indeed how else could his humane nature be better proved and exemplified than by his fear and heaviness at the nigh approach of his ignominious and must cruel unnatural deathâ— and how else could his obedience be better proved and exemplified to be most perfect than by his most perfect patience under such an ignominious and cruel usage and therefore by his constancy in his patience and obedience through the whole combate with Satan he got the victory over Satan and won the prize that was set before him by the Masters of the combate Phil. 2. 8 9. and this God declared first in Gen. 3. 15. He shall break thy head-plot In these words God declared that the Phil. 2. 8 9. Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 2. 10. All Christs greatest sufferings were by Gods appointment to bee from his combater Satan as in Reply 12. and 6. seed of the woman should be a victorious combater and conqueror of his enemy Satan by his patience and obedience through the whole combate And that Christs sufferings are set out by his combater Satan it is the Scripture phrase and language by which Christs sufferings and his victory is described and deciphered as it is evident by Gen. 3. 15. and so in like sort by Heb. 2. 10. he is there called the Captain of our salvation and it is there said that it became God to consecrate him or to make him perfect as he is our Captain in the combate through his victorious sufferings from his combater Satan and see also Exod. 32. 29. And Christ is called our Captain because all good Christians are called his Souldiers 2 Tim. 2. 3 4. And therefore in Col. 2. 15. Christ is said to have spoiled Principalities and Col 2. 15. powers and as a conqueror to make a shew of them openly and to triumph over them in it namely in his patient and obedient death on the cross and he is also compared to a victorious shepherd that ventures his life to combate with the fierce Lion and the ravenous Bear to redeem the poor Lamb from his prey as David did in Joh. 13. 11. and in Isa 53. 12. He is Isa 53. 12. Ioh. 10. 11. said to divide the spoyl with the strong because he poured out his soul to the death namely because he ventured his life with his combater Satan and because at last when he had fulfilled all his sufferings he powred out his vital soul to the death in the nature of a sacrifice when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit And therefore saith God He shall divide the spoil with the strong adversary Satan for though Satan at the first got the victory over Adam and thereby inwrapped all mankind under his power as his spoil yet now at the last Christ by his constant patience and obedience notwithstanding all Satans provocations hath got the victory again over Satan and by that means he pacified Gods wrath for the Elect and rescued them from being Satans spoil to be his spoil And thus you see
which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgeâ—â—â—â— To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they misâ— it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and Heb. 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and at last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time tugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. And thus instead of entring
you answer me That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory Forsooth he that should so answer would bee laughed to scorn of all the world as hee were well worthy Wherefore was it then Verily even for the fear of death as it plainly appeareth after for he prayed unto his Father saying My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me Mat. 26. 38 39. So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh And saith he the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah that hee wept for fear of Death and not of Purgatory In these words you see that Friths judgement was That Christs Agony was for fear not of a spiritual but of a corporal death 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground and speaking of Christs last Supper hee saith thus The fear of death was the same hour upon him neither slept hee any more after but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples into the place where he was taken to abide his Persecutors where also he sweat water and blood of very agony conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying In his Agony he sweat drops like blood These five last Authors you see are not for sweating of perfect blood though Tindal say hee sweat water and blood yet that is far from pure blood and farther from clods of blood 2 This is farther remarkable that Tindal and Frith do make the fear of his bodily death in the words cited to bee the cause of his Agony 3 This is still farther remarkable that neither of these two have a word in all their writings that hee suffered any other death but a bodily death though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresie 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by mee cannot examine the Quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox than the sense of the Dialogue Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons unjust prejudice of the Dialogue for the Author of the Dialogue cites their sense to his sense which is so clear and manifest that it stares him in the face and yet their words cited in the sense of the Dialogue he saith is orthodox and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresie Is not this plain partiality to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox and to condemn it in another for heresie And saith hee Friths other writings call to have it so namely to mean it according to Mr. Norton Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith and to the Reader to make Frith of his judgement the words of Frith which I have truly cited him do cry shame upon him for saying so and in all his writings hee makes the death of Christ to bee no other but a true bodily death 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith namely to bee sorrowful unto death and for the exceeding grief thereof to powre forth a bloody sweat 13 Damasen saith thus Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions for he assumed the whole man and all that pertained to man except sin Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power and whatsoever entred into mans life through the condemnation of sin namely of Adams sin as hunger thirst weakness labour weeping corruption shunning of death fear agony whence sweat and drops of blood These things saith he are in all men by nature Christ therefore took all these unto him that he might sanctifie them all Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature and above nature According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when hee permitted his flesh to indure that which was proper to it Above nature because nature in him did never go before his will for there was nothing forced in him but all things voluntary when hee would hee hungred when he would hee thirsted when hee would hee feared and when hee would hee dyed From this speech of Damasen touching Christs Passion and Agony in the Garden we see he held 1 That shunning of Death Fear Agony whence sweat and drops of blood which are in all men by nature and therefore saith he Christ took all these unto him that hee might sanctifie them all 2 That these were in Christ not only according to nature but above nature because nature in him did never go before his will 3 That nothing in him was forced therefore hee was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God Conclusion When the fulness of time was come that the seed of the woman Christ Jesus was to be bruised and peirced in the foot-soals with an ignominious torturing death by Satan and his instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane but must leave the humane nature to its self to manage this conflict in which conflict he was to manifest his true humane infirmities and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seise upon him he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy and then he said unto Peter James and John My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death or it is surrounded with sorrow that is to say Every part of my body wherein I have my vital soul is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death by such a malignant enemy as is armed with power and authority from Gâ—d to execute it on me and I do here manifest my true humane nature and the infirmities of it that you may record it to all posterity that I have took part with them that for fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage that they may be assured I am a merciful High-priest and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree for then it might be doubted whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am but in the highest degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution of my nature above the nature of other men But yet it is of necessity that I must overcome this natural fear because I have covenanted to lay down my life by my own will desire and power Joh. 10. 17 18. and therefore my rational soul must betake it self to prayer therefore tarry yee here and watch and pray that yee be not overcome by the many temptations that now are at hand to try you and then he went a little from them and fell on the ground and prayed That if it were possible that hour might pass from him namely that the dread of his ignominious usage might pass from him for so much the hour imports in Mark 14. 35 41. And his Agony was so
Philosopher than to a judicious Divine for though the humane nature of Christ did ever subsist in his divine person from the time of the union yet it did not subsist in his divine person according to the order of natural causes but after the ineffable manner of the voluntary cause of which the rule is not true posiâ—â causâ sequitur effectus for such voluntary causes do work according to the liberty of the voluntary agreement of the persons in Trinity 2 I say also that the form of this union cannot be exemplified from any natural or civil union and therefore the operations that flew from this union may well differ from the operations that flow from all other unions I grant that Athanasius doth in some respects sitly exemplifie See Pareus Notes on Athanasius Creed Art â— this union to the union of our soul and body making one man but yet in some respects it will not hold In two things saith Pareus this similitude doth not agree 1 Because in man by reason of the union of the reasonable soul and body some third thing specifically different is made up to wit man of matter and form neither of which alone is man It is not so saith he in Christ because the word Assuming the flesh was God and the same person both before and after the Incarnation heretofore without flesh and afterwards cloathed with it 2 Saith he The soul of man receives into it the passions of the body with which it grieveth and rejoyceth but God the word is void of all affection and passion Therefore seeing this union is so unexpressible the operations of each nature may well differ from the operations of all other unions 3 Seeing it was the will of the blessed Trinity according to their agreement in the voluntary Covenant that the two natures of the Mediator should keep each nature and their properties distinct Thence the Mediator might act either as man only or as God only or as God and man joyntly And this observation is of necessary use for the right understanding of many Scriptures as it is noted by the Dialogue from Mr. Calvin in p. 111. and to him I will adde Mr. Thomas Wilson for in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scriptures hee saith In his 111. Theological Rule p. 164. thus Some of the works of Christ were proper to his God-head as his miracles Secondly Some to his Man-hood as his natural and moral works Thirdly Some to his whole person as his works of Mediation in which each nature did that which was proper to it but Mr. Norton makes no good use of this rule And all these several operations do arise from the unexpressible nature of this union which doth work according to the agreement of the persons in the voluntary Covenant And of this I have also given a touch before in page 174. 2 I have made it evident in the former Chapter That the most excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature did make all his sufferings to be abundantly more sharp and keen to his senses than the like can be to us that are by nature born the bond-slaves of sin corruption and death for in that respect out natural spirits are of a blockish and dull sense and therefore we cannot abhor misery and death with that quick sense and feeling as the pure constitution of Christs humane nature might and did do and therefore wee cannot cry out with such a deep sense of it as hee did 3 In obedience to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and in obedience to his own Covenant to enter the Lists with Satan with his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities It behoved his divine nature to rest and to leave his humane nature to feel the power of Satans enmity because it was now the very appointed hour for the powers of darkness to exercise their utmost enmity according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. So then the operation of his divine nature in this appointed hour was to withdraw assistance from his humane nature and not to protect it as it did at other times but to leave his humane nature alone in the combate and to let the Prince of darkness have his full liberty to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience if he could or in case he could not prevail then it was agreed that these trials should be for the consecration of him as of the Priest and Prince of our salvation to his sacrifice And to this sense do the Ancient Divines speak 1 The Passion of Christ saith Austin was the sweet sleep of his Divinity Mr. Rich. Ward in his Commentary on Mat. 27. 42. doth thus paraphrase on these words of Austin As in a sweet sleep saith he the soul is not departed though the operations thereof be for a time suspended so during the time of Christs sufferings his God-head rested as it were in a sweet sleep that so the humanity might suffer in all points according to Gods Decree and to this sense also doth Mr. Perkins speak on the Creed fol. 121. 2 Theodâ—râ—t on Psal 22. saith Christ called that a dereliction which was a permission of the Divinity that the Humanity should suffer 3 Isyehius in Lev. li. 5. ch 16. faith Christs Deity is said to depart by withdrawing his own power from his Humanity that he might give time to his passion 4 The Master of the sentences saith the Divine nature did forsake the humane nature First By not protecting it And secondly By withdrawing his power that so he might suffer And saith he in lib. 3. dist 2. the Deity severed it self because it withdrew protection And secondly saith he it separated it self outwardly not to defend but it failed not inwardly to continue the union If saith he it had not withdrawn but exercised power Christ could not have died 5 Leo de passi Dom. Ser. 170. saith That the Lord should be delivered to his passion it was his Fathers will as well as his own That not onely the Father might leave him but that after a sort he should forsake himself not by any fearful shrinking but by a voluntary cession or resting for the power of Christ crucified contained it self from these wicked ones and to perform his secret disposition he would not use any manifest power he that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would have resisted his pursuers Ibidem Christ saith he cried with a loud voyce Why hast thou forsaken me that he might make it manifest to all for what cause he ought not to be delivered nor defended but to be left into the hands of his perfecutoâ—s which was to be made the Saviour of the world and the redeemer of all men not by any miserable necessity but of mercy not for lack of help but of purpose to die for us Ibidem And saith he Let us leave this to
off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exâ—ctly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing out sins to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of dâ—ath 〈◊〉 ofâ—en called death in Scripture though they 〈…〉 the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue 〈…〉 affirm that Christ death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and so in Joh. 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Joh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of
concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Joh. 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonab had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijah also had a great desire to dye and yet hee had not power to dye and therefore he prayed unto God saying O Lord take away my vital soul 1 King 19. 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself when the appointed hour was come to make his soul a sacrifice Fifthly Saith Christ I have the same power to lay down my vital soul that I have to take it up again and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life with my power which I have to take it up again This saith Origen afore cited neither Moses nor
13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge wâ—th the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sins Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansâ—ng and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctâ—fie them or make them holy from the defilement of all theiâ— legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if â—he bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers that could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2. 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods
Reconciliation or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation doth make a beleeving sinner not onely without blemish and spotless but holy also And so the word sanctifie and cleanse in Ephes 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy and without blemish in the same verse Sixthly I pray note this also That the holiness of Christs person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness as it is affirmed by some unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christs Righteousness formally saith he is incommunicable to any other our union with Christ saith he makes uâ— 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 Parenthesis 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 iâ— 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 out sending out or putting 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-â—cted 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 price can dispence in case of the Antitype Reply 29. And why not Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth The Lord in mercy open his eyes and all our eyes to see better into the force of Gods voluntary Covenant for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant that doth make any thing to bee a full formal price in his own sight and on the contrary that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes can be made a ful price formally in his esteem without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant doth concur thereto Conclusions from my several Replyes to the said third Question 1 Hence it follows That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of his death on the Cross namely he did not so forsake him as to suffer his humane nature to be put to death formally by the power of Satans torturing pains neither did he appoint his death to be made a sacrifice by his own immediate wrath but onely by Christs own Priestly power 2 Hence it follows That the death of Christ in the formality of it was accepted of God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Reconciliation by which his wrath was appeased and his favour procured to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners he was the Mediator of the New Testament through his death because he compleated the same as our Mediatorial Priest by the joynt concurrence of both his natures in personal union and in that