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.
sense Now the first Scripture wherein the true Plat-form of our Redemption is first declared is Gen. 3. 15. In this Scripture God doth first proclaim an utter enmity between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent and in that Text God told the Devil that one of the seed of that deceived sinful Woman should in his true humane nature try Masteries with him and conquer him and he told Satan that he should have his full liberty to do what he could either by fraud or by force to hinder this seed of the Woman from breaking his Head-plot and so from winning the prize of mans Redemption and therefore God gave him full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the Foot-soals to try if by any means he could disturb his patience And in this Combate Christ covenanted that his humane nature should strive lawfully and not suffer his patience to be disturbed nor his obedience to be any wayes perverted until he had finished the Combate with Satan and then he also covenanted in the perfection of that obedience to make his soul a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation And hence it also follows That God the Father had covenanted to and with Christ that he would accept his Combate and his Sacrifice as a valuable consideration for the procuring of his Reconciliation to all the Elect. And thus it was declared that the seed of the Woman should break the Devils Head-plot and win the prize which was the Redemption of all the Elect from Satans spoyl And first From this Proclamation of Enmity and from this first Declaration of the Combate with Satan and of the Victory by the seed of the deceived Woman in Gen. 3. 15. must all the following Scriptures have reference for their true Exposition And secondly From this Scripture it is most evident That all Christs outward sufferings were by Gods appointment to be inflicted on him from the malice of Satan and his Instruments and that all his inward sufferings in his vital soul were to be assumed and exercised from his own true humane affections and passions which he took from the seed of the Woman in relation to his ill usage from his Enemy Satan And thirdly Neither in this nor in any following Scripture iâ— there any mention that Christ was to be made a sinner by Gods judicial imputation there is no such Court-language in the Scriptures neither is the term Hell-torments nor the second death nor the term Inflicted from Gods immediate wrath applied to Christ neither in this nor in any other Scripture though Mr. Norton hath perverted most dangerously many of the blessed Scriptures so to speak Fourthly When this first Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. is rightly understood and conferred with all the other Scriptures that speak of Christs sufferings it will fully declare That Mr. Nortons Tenents are most dangerously erronious and it will confirm the truth of the Dialogue Fifthly This Text of Gen. 3. 15. being rightly understood will be a general Key to open all the other Scriptures that speak of the sufferings of Christ in their right sense Sixthly In this Scripture is set out both the person and office of the Mediator First The term he relates to his humane nature from the seed of the Woman And secondly The term he relates to his divine nature or else he could not have taken the seed of the Woman without original sin Thirdly His office is declared to be a Combater with Satan in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions And it was declared that Satan his envious Combater should have his full liberty to do his worst to provoke his passions to some distemper or other that so he might spoyl his obedience and so hinder him from making his soul a Sacrifice c. as it is further declared in this Reply Good Reader Let this eminent example of these ingenuous Bereans make thy spirit calm and deliberate to search into the blessed Scriptures daily whether of us have given the right sense that error may be avoided and that the truth may be imbraced and confirmed to thy soul and to the Church of God when we are dead and gone Thine in the Lord W. PYNCHON A Postscript AFter I had finished my Reply to Mr. Norton and after a good part of it was printed I received a Book lately published by Mr. Anthony Burges called The true Doctrine of Justification the second Part wherein I found that he hath opposed some things in my Book of the Meretorious Price but yet with a differing spirit from Mr. Norton for he professeth that he likes not to be so deep in censuring as he sees some others are 1 In page 407. He doth oppose the Dialogue because it distinguisheth between Christs legal and Mediatorial obedience But in Chap. 3. and elsewhere I have justified the said distinction to be sound and good 2 In page 426. He doth oppose the Dialogue because it makes the formality of Christs death and sacrifice to be supernatural and in this point his answer is almost in Mr. Nortons expressions and therefore my Reply in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and elsewhere is a sufficient Reply to him as well as it is to Mr. Norton 3 He holds differing things in the point of Christs Satisfaction not only from me but also from Mr. Norton but I hope my whole Book is a sufficient Reply and a sufficient vindication of the truth 4 There is one Scripture in my following Reply which I have cited to my sense out of Mr. Burges in Vindiciae legis namely Mat. 5. 17 18. which he doth now expound in a differing sense from what he had done in Vindiciae legis namely That Christ came to fulfil the Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation This Exposition he did not give in Vindiciae legis but yet I perceived that he held it to be a truth in it self but by his former exposition I could not conceive that hee ever intended to hold it from this Text and Context or else I had not cited him and now I would have left him out had I not been prevented by the Press for the Exposition that I have now given of that Text in page 113. I beleeve is the truth and it hath the approbation of other eminent orthodox Writers And as for his two Reasons given in page 357. to prove that these words of Christ must bee understood of his Suretiship fulfilling they prove it not but according to the Context they do most fitly agree to Christs Doctrinal fulfilling as I have expounded that Text. Thus much I thought fit to speak to the Reader 5 Whereas it hath pleased him to give the term of many Novelismes to my Book I reply That every one knows that when any one doth labour to vindicate the true sense of the blessed Scriptures from some long accustomed errors that such Expositors will be accounted to hold Novelismes
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
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
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
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
suffered not the losse of Gods love nor his image and graces nor eternity of Torment 5 Every seventh yeer was a yeer of releasing Debts Deut. 15. 1. figuring the yeer of Gods grace by Christ by whom we have obtained of God the release of our debts that is the forgivenesse of our sins Luke 4. 18. Mat. 6. 12. Mar. 11. 25. this figured that we should be kind one to another forgiving one another even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us Eph. 4. 32. Col. 3. 12 13. Luke 6. 35 36. Now Releasements of a debt and exact payment either by our selves or by our Surety cannot possibly stand with kindnesse and mercy This overthroweth Popish satisfaction and quencheth the fire of Purgatory saith Marbeck and say I this doth overthrow Mr. Norions Tenent that will allow no other satisfaction but the suffering of the Essential Curse in kind by our Surety and so consequently he leaves no room for Gods gracious releasment of our debts My fourth Reason is this Because it is exceeding derogatory to the infinite satisfaction of Christs sacrifice to place full satisfaction in Christs sufferings of the Essential Torments of Hell on the Crosse before the To affirm full satisfaction by suffering Hell-torments before the compleatment of Christs death doth derogate from the sufficiency of his death and sacrifice formality of his Death Sacrifice which was ordained to be the compleatment of all satisfaction and therefore full satisfaction cannot be the final end of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton makes it to be For in p. 32. he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second Death before he suffered his natural death Here the Reader may take notice that Mr. Norton makes the final end of Christs sufferings to bee for full satisfaction and to bee accomplished before his death and so consequently hee makes Christs Death and Sacrifice to be altogether vain and needlesse as to the point of satisfaction such a poysonful assertion as this may soon poyson a great deal of Divine Scripture-truth But of satisfaction by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ I shall speak more hereafter especially in Chap. 17. My fifth Reason is in Chap. 5. To affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell is to affirm that Christ suffered from Gods hatred for the Essential Torments of Hell is inflicted from Gods hatred See Chap. 5. Chap. 6. and almost every other Chapter affords a distinct Argument against Hell-torments which the Reader will easily observe But I will propound this one at present for my sixth Reason My sixth Reason is in Chap. 12. The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are called Chastisements in Esa 53. 5. therefore they cannot bee the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods vindicative wrath CHAP. V. His second Distinction examined which is this in Page 9. Distinguish between the wrath of God and the hatred of God Wrath is sometimes taken for Hatred and then it signifies Reprobation c. Though God in the second sense not in the first may be said to be wroth with Christ yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ God hates both persons and sins of the Reprobates he hates sin in the Surety and in the Elect but he ever loved their persons With this compare another speech of Mr. Nortons in page 113. Then saith he the pain of Losse consists not in the meer want of the love or favour of God for the Reprobates Men or Devils are alwayes hated of God Gods Love and Hatred are Eternal and Immutable Reply 1. THough it bee granted that the Hatred of God signifies Reprobation yet there is also a Hatred of God that reacheth unto Eternity This cannot be Reprobation for these two Reasons 1 The hatred of Reprobation saith Dr. Ames in his Marrow The essential Torments of Hell is from Gods hatred to affirm therefore that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is to affirm that Christ suffered from Gods hatred l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. doth only deny good but doth not inflict evill save only by the desert of the creature coming between This hatred of God doth inflict the evill of the curse upon the damned Therefore it is a hatred that is distinct from that of Reprobation 2 This hatred is Eternal for though Reprobation bee from Eternity in God yet it is not Eternal and the reason is because the end of Gods Reprobation is the manifestation of his justice Rom. 9. 22. and when Gods justice is manifested and the Curse executed then the end is obtained and so Reprobation ceaseth See Dr. Ames in Marrow l. 1. c. 25. Thes 32. Reply 2. In propriety of speech God is without all passions of anger wrath hatred c. these things are ascribed to God after the manner of men when God doth that which doth make us think him to be angry and to hate because we do so when wee are angry and when we do hate Hence it follows that seeing Mr. Norton holds that God did execute the Essential punishment of Hell-torments upon Christ as they are due to Reprobates that God must do it in hatred to him as well as to the Reprobates and so the Hebrew Doctors in Chap. 15. expound the term Second death from whom it is taken to bee a perpetual misery in the hatred of God And so saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christs dying page 35. 39. The Hell of the Reprobates is a satisfactory pain and 2 It floweth from the hatred of God But saith Mr. Norton Though God did execute the Essentials upon Christ yet in no sense could he be said ever to hate Christ But how can it be avoided perhaps Mr. Norton will say because God did not execute the accidental and circumstantial parts of the Curse upon Christ But may it not be more truly said because Christ did not deserve the Essentials Let the unpartial Reader judge between us CHAP. VI. Mr. Nortons third Distinction in Page 9. examined which is this Distinguish concerning Imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt taken not for the commission of sin but for the obligation to punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the latter sense Reply 1. I Grant that Gods imputation of sin is either of sin it self or of guilt or rather of both for they are correlates and therefore Gods imputation whether it bee understood of sin it self or of sin and guilt joyntly It doth alwayes in Scripture-language refer to the same subject But saith Mr. Norton in Page 41. Guilt and Punishments are Relates Reply 2. I grant they are alwayes Relates according to the order of legal proceedings in Courts of justice and in this way and order of satisfaction doth Mr. Norton go all along But in point of Christs satisfaction I go all along in the way and order of Voluntary
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
Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joyes of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have accorded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The founder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical sense of Hell may bee thus considered Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades except in one place and there it is translated The metaphorical sense of Sheol Haides Thanatos death the word in both languages is of large signification and it may be ranked into these senses First It signifies sorrows and afflictions Secondly Death to the person Thirdly The Grave to the body Fourthly The world of souls to the souls departed namely to the godly soul Paradise and to the wicked Gehenna for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dye whether they bee faithful and go to heaven or unfaithful and go to hell but Hades is first used for the hell of the damned in Luke 16. 2. Secondly For the penal hell of the godly in suffering persecutions and afflictions in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them 3 It is used for soul-sorrows when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time
by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and he Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a twofold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Aâ—imad gives this exposition of Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell us of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3. 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the Seed of the Woman at the self-same time should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials and then having finished all that was written of him he should set his soul a Trespass-offering which he did when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that time he bowed his head and gave up the ghost by his own Priestly Power and not by Sathans power And without this combate with Sathan and without this shedding of blood there is no Satisfaction and so no Remission But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be and was without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God Though not without Gods appointment and permission to Sathan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman to spoil his obedience if he could in which conflict Christ had his Col. 2. 14 15. Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head-plot broken Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience or turning away back till he had spoyled the Head-plot of Principalities and Powers by
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
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
type of our moral justification both by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods Attonement 2. The Seventy do render Caphar to cleanse as in Exod. 29. 37. and in Exod. 30. 10. 3. They render it to purge in Deut. 32. 43. Exod. 30. 10. Isa 60. 7. and these three differing expressions do but explain the former word Attonement in our Translations for in Exod. 29. 33 36. it is in the same verses it is also explained by the word sanctified as Synonimas to Caphar By these and such like terms given by the Seventy to Caphar it is evident that they understood that when Gods angry face was attoned by sacrifice in relation to their ceremonial sins that they were thereby sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. and that thereby their persons were justified in respect of their appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or in regard of feasting with him on the holy flesh of the Passeover or Peace-offerings and in this respect they called such cleansings Heb. 9. 1 10. justifications of divine Service Heb. 9. 1. and carnal justifications in v. 10. viz. Ceremonial Ritual and Typical as Mr. Trap expounds it or the righteousness of the flesh as I have more largely opened the matter a little before and so also when the Temple was ceremonially purged from the pollutions of Antiochus it is said in the Seventy to be cleansed but in the Hebrew Text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. Hence it follows by an unavoidable consequence that their Dan. 8. 14. legal Ordinances by which they obtained Gods attonement for their legal cleansings sanctifyings and justifyings and for their legal righteousness did typifie and exemplifie how sinners are cleansed washed sanctified and justified as it is expressed by these terms in 1 Corinth 6. 11. and how they are made righteous by the righteousness of the Law as it is in Rom. 2. 26. and in Rom. 8. 4. namely because the sacrifice of Christ is the fulfilling and end of all sacrifices and of all other legal cleansings and therefore it is the onely meritorious and procuring cause of Gods attonement and forgiveness for the formal cleansing washing sanctifying and justifying the conscience from the accusing and condemning power of all moral sins by which means we may stand before God as justified persons in his sight when we come to put up our requests unto him or to feast with him at the Lords Table for when we come to the Lords Table Gods forgiveness is the greatest and most precious dainty for which Christ shed his blood and therefore at his last Supper he said thus to his Disciples This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for the many for the remission of sins Mat. 26. 28. according as it was promised in Dan. 9. 24. this dainty of Gods forgiveness is the great purchase of Christs blood which makes them blessed that have it Psa 32. 1. and makes them eternally righteous in Gods sight that have it Dan. 9. 24. This and a nâ—w heart are the two great legacies of the new Covenant Jer. 31. Heb. 8. These things thus opened me thinks should so enlighten the eyes of our understanding to see what the righteousness of God is and to imbrace it as a most blessed truth or at least not to resist it but to strive to understand is better but when Gods will is to darken the understanding of men with erroneous conceptions then the tongue of Angels cannot prevail with them to hold the contrary And thus have I in some measure opened this phrase The Righteousness of God by his Reconciliation or Attonement and I have opened the word Attonement both in the meritorious and in the formal causes namely that Sacrifices for sin did meritoriously cover Gods angry face attone pacifie reconcile expiate propitiate purge sanctifie cleanse and purifie or make righteous a sinner by procuring Gods attonement for his formal reconciliation righteousness and justification And now methinks Mr. Norton may do well to consider his unadvisedness in villifying this kind of attonement And 2. In restraining it only to a covering of pitch and such like tenaclouâ— matter whereby he confounds both his own understanding and his Readers also The second part of Mr. Nortons comparative Argument in pag. 53. is this Christ was made sin as he was made a curse but he was made a curse by judicial imputation therefore he was made sin by a real imputation Reply 10. In my examination of Gal. 3. 13. I have shewed how Christ was made a curse and in the beginning of this Chapter I have shewed how he was made sin therefore I shall not need to make any further reply here to these things but refer the reader to those places 2 The rest that he allegeth in p. 55. wherein he makes God to charge Christ with sin as a supreme Judge according to the judicial way of Court proceedings because it is no Scripture language in the point of Christs satisfaction but devised terms to express his own erronious conception therefore I shall not need to give any other answer to it here CHAP. XV. The Examination of Gal. 3. 13. with Deut. 21. 23. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us For it is written in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a Tree THe Cusre of hanging upon a Tree which Christ suffered the Dialogue doth expound of the outward curse which he suffered in respect of the outward manner of his death by hanging on a Tree But Mr. Norton in page 93. Doth expound it Of the inward and eternal Curse which he suffered from Gods immediate wrath when hee hung upon the Tree SECT I. Mr. Norton frames his Argument thus If not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs Redemption of us from the Curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. then the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but a typical signification But not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. Therefore the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but â— typical signification The minor saith Mr. Norton is the Apostles Reply 1. Mr. Norton doth exceedingly abuse the Apostles meaning to say that his minor is the Apostles and also in saying that the Apostle doth cite Deut. 21. 23. to prove that our Redemption by Christ is both held forth and foretold there But for the better finding out of the Apostles meaning in Gal. 3. 13. There are two distinct clauses in the fomer part of the verse that are of necessity to be
well marked 1 That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 That he was made a curse for us These two clauses the Dialogue hath expressed thus 1 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 When he was made a curse for us Now saith the Dialogue the Apostle cites Deut. 21. 23. only to prove the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death like unto other notorious Malefactors even at the same time when he redeemed us from the curse of the Law by making the formality of his death to bee a sacrifice by his own Priestly power 2 It is further evident that this sense is the truth by the prediction of it from the time of Adams fall in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt pierce him as a sinful Malefactor on the Tree and yet hee shall break thy Head-plot at the very same time by his The outward manner of Christs death on the Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. obedience to the death for in all his conflict with thy ignominious torturing pains on the Cross he shall not suffer his patience to bee disturbed nor his obedience to bee perverted but hee shall continue obedient to the death even the death of the Cross and in that obedience as soon as thou hast done thy worst to disturb it and as soon as hee hath finished all his sufferings hee shall make his death a sacrifice by his own Priestly power And it is reconded of him that as soon as he had but said It is finished he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost and that was the formality both of his death and sufferings And thus hee brake the Devils Head-plot had the victory and won the prize which was the redemption of all the Elect even at the same time when hee was put to death as a cursed Malefactor by the Devil in hanging on a Tree This was the declared platform of the Trinity according to their eternal Covenant for mans Redemption as I have expressed it in the Dialogue but have often in this book amplified and inlarged it 3 It is worth the marking that the Apostle doth not put the Article The to the word Curse cited from Deut. 21. 23. but only to the first word Curse as it is cited in verse 10. from Deut. 27. But in case the latter word Curse had included the moral Curse as well as the former word Curse then in reason it should have had the Article The put to it as wel as it is to the former but because it is not put to the latter therefore this may serve as another Argument to prove the Apostle meant that Christ suffered no other Curse but such a Curse as his proof meant namely a cursed death in the outward manner of it just like unto those Malefactors that were hanged on a Tree according to Deut. 21. 23. and Gen. 3. 15. And to this sense doth Chrysostom and Theophilact expound the Curse that Christ suffered cited in the former Chapter namely that he suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner for he was put to death as a sinner by the Devils imputation but not by Gods imputation if hee had suffered as a sinner from Gods immediate wrath and by Gods imputation then hee must some way or other have had communion with our guilt For saith Grotius afore cited merit is personal and therefore when the Ancient Divines say Hee suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner they mean it only in respect of the likeness of his punishments unto other cursed Malefactors which punishment an innocent person may suffer as well as a Malefactor And so Austin saith well that Christ received our punishment without sin that thereby hee might dissolve our sin and end our punishment And in relation to this sense the Dialogue doth open the Apostles words thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law even at the same time When hee was made not that Curse in verse 10. But a curse for us according to Deut. 21. 23. But saith Mr. Norton the word When is not in the Text but it is of your own putting in Reply 2. It is a usual thing with Mr. Norton to censure the Dialogue with some odious thing or other without any just cause But by his leave the Dialogue is able to justifie it self by the concurrence of good Authors for this word When. 1 Mr. Perkins doth use the word When twice over First In his translation of this Text. And secondly In his Analysis 2 Mr. Ainsworth doth render this Text thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law When hee was made a curse for us in Exod 32. 32. 3 Mr. Calvin in his citation of this Text doth put in the word When just as Mr. Ainsworth hath done in his Inst lib. 2. Chap. 16. Sect 6. 4 The Prophet Isaiah useth the word When just in this very case saying in Isa 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to Isa 53. 10. put him to grief on the Tree When hee shall make his soul a Trespass namely a Trespass or a Sin-sacrifice as the Septuagint render Asham 5 The Syriak doth translate it And or When hee was made a Curse for us Vau in Syriak and Hebrew is usually put for And and yet it is sometimes also put for When and therefore Tremelius doth render it in to Latine Dum pro nobis factus est execratio and Erasmus doth translate the Greek thus Dum pro nobis which doth answer to our English word When or While 6 Tindal doth translate Gal. 3. 13. by And and not by Being 7 The Greek word in Gal. 3. 13. is often put for When by our Translators as in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak Vau into Latine Dum and into English When he was in Bethany and When he was in an Agony and therefore by the like reason it may as well bee translated When hee was made a Curse for us 8 It seems to mee therefore that Mr. Norton doth find fault with the Dialogue from no other cause but because the word When doth utterly spoyl the visage of the Argument for it is no way suitable to his typical sense on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend and therefore it is no marvel that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chastisement in Isa 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him namely When he was wounded for our transgressions and when hee was bruised for our iniquities But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross then the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it for we cannot find in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God and
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
fear of death When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason in Martyrs then no man can express what conflict there is between nature and death which conflict was not in Christ whiles they have had the use of their sanctified reason yet afterwards as soon as their torments have astonished nature and by that means deprived them of the use of their sanctified reason then the same soul that was so fearless at first doth begin to shew the terrors of nature at the dominion of death and then no man can express what conflicts of fear and horror there is in nature against death but the manner of Christs death was far otherwise for at the utmost point of death Christs humane nature did not conflict with fear and horror as all Martyrs do But hee expressed his natural fear and horror of death before hand in the Garden as it were in private to three of his Disciples that they might record it as a proof of his true humane nature for he did manifest it First By his speeches before he prayed And secondly in the time of his prayers but not after his prayers there was no mention of any more fear for by his prayers he had obtained a confirmation of his nature against the fear of his ignominious usage and against the fear of death I say it once more that it may be the better marked that after his prayers hee never shewed any fear of death more yea when he was at the very point of death upon the Cross hee did not express any natural strugling or striving with the pangs of death for there was no pangs in his death because the formality of it was supernatural and therefore his nature was not now subject to strive with the pangs of death as nature doth in all Martyrs the formality of his death did far surpass the death of all Martyrs because he had obtained a deliverance and a confirmation from his natural fear of death by his strong crying prayers and tears in the Garden Heb. 5. 7. So that when hee came to breath out his soul in the open view of all men both of his persecutors and of his godly friends he did without Heb. 5. 7. any trembling or strugling of nature instantly and quietly breath out his soul by his own Priestly power even whiles hee was in strength of nature and this I hope is contrary to the course of nature in the death of all Martyrs And by this last act of Christ in his death he declared himself to be our Mediator in his death and to be our High-priest in his death and sacrifice Lord saith Cyprian thou didst profess thy self before thine Cyprian de Pas Christi Apostles to be sorrowful unto death and for exceeding grief didst powre forth a bloody sweat But saith hee I admire thee O Lord that being once fastened to the Cross amidst the condemned to be now neither sorrowful nor fearful but despising the punishments with thy hands lifted up to triumph over Amaleck Here you see that Cyprians judgement was That Christ was neither sorrowful nor fearful for his death when he hung upon the Cross as hee was in the Garden and therefore hee held that Christ had overcome this fear and horror of death by his prayers in the Garden And secondly That in the Garden hee did powre forth a bloody sweat for fear of his bodily death Thirdly Hee held that Christ triumphed over Amaleck that is to say over Satan by his unconquerable patience on the Cross Conclusion from the Premises Hence it follows that the two reasons of the Dialogue afore cited stand stronger and firmer than they did notwithstanding Mr. Norton hath endeavoured to shake them to nothing by his windy reasoning But in Page 58. Mr. Norton doth vindicate Calvin from the Dialogue sense to his sense Reply 9. What the Dialogue cited out of Mr. Calvin touching Christs troubled fear of death where his words run without any mention of Hell-torments was at the first useful to me and I thought that the same speeches might bee of the like good use to others especially seeing the Dialogue doth annex unto the former speeches of Calvin his expressions of Christs troubled soul-sorrows for the death of Lazarus by his weeping and groaning in spirit and troubling himself Joh. 11. 33 35. In which soul-troubles so pathetically manifested no man can imagine that he suffered any thing in soul from Gods immediate wrath or from Hell-torments and therefore why should we not likewise expound his other soul-sorrows to be in relation to his ignominious and painful death But seeing Mr. Norton is not willing to accept his words as I cited them to the sense of the Dialogue let him take Mr. Calvin on his side the truth of the Dialogue I hope may stand well enough without him and in case hee shall except against any other that I have cited for illustration I shall not much pass as long as I cite the Scripture sense according to the Context But for all this it seems that Mr. Norton is not very well pleased with Mr. Calvins judgement for in page 61. Mr. Norton doth cite him on purpose to confute him Mr. Calvin saith hee doth affirm that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men But saith Mr. Norton because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ latter Writers chuse rather to say That he suffered the punishment of the Elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Reply 10. This distinction may please such as had rather take mans word without the Scripture sense than take the pains to dig out the true Scripture sense But I wonder what difference there is betwixt this speech of Calvin that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torments of the damned and forsaken men and this speech of Mr. Nortons in page 56. That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that speech in page 213. That Christ was accursed with a poenal and eternal curse For my part I can find no difference in them but I will leave such nice distinctions to them that love them and that can discern the difference for I cannot SECT II. Mr. Nortons Answer in page 62. to the Dialogues Exposition of Mark. 10. 39. Examined Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 26. 39. Mat. 20. 22 23. THe words in the Dialogue run thus in page 46. our Saviour doth explain the quality of those sorrows which hee suffered at the time of his death unto the two sons of Zebedeus he tells them They must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism Mar. 10. 39. Hee tells them That they must bee conformable to the quality and kind of his sufferings though perhaps there might bee some difference in the degree of their sufferings and he doth explain the kind of his sufferings by a twofold expression 1 Hee tells them They must drink of
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
do all the external sufferings and that God did appoint Christ as he was the seed of the woman to do all his internal sufferings and thus God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings because he was first in the order of that Covenant where it was agreed on what Christ should suffer for mans redemption He first expounded to the second person that he should take mans nature of the seed of the woman and mans infirmities affections and passions that so he might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities as our merciful High-Priest when the objects of fear sorrow and heaviness should present In this sense God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings Fifthly God is said to do all because he delivered him into the hands of Satan that Satan might do his worst in his combate with him Him being delivered saith Peter by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God Act. 2. 23 24. who delivered him but Act. 2. 23 24. God to whom did he deliver him but to Satan to combate with him according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. ye have taken him and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up loosing the paint of death namely loâ—â—â—ng or healing the soars and wounds that were inflicted on his 〈◊〉 by Satan and his instruments to put him to death But no soars were inflicted on him by Gods immediate wrath no other soars were put upon him but such as God permitted the Devil and his instruments to inflict out of a design to provoke his patience as he did to Job that so he might pervert him in his obedience and spoil his death from being a sacrifice and so might prevent the breaking of his first head-plot which was to subdue Adam and all his posterity under the body of sin So in Rom. 4. 25. He was delivered for our offences namely God Rom. 4. 25. delivered him into the hands of Satan according to Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries with Satan and in case Satan could disturb his patience then he should save his head-plot but in case Christ did continue through all the combate obedient to the positive Laws of the combate to the death of the Cross and at last in that perfect obedience make his soul a sacrifice then he should redeem us from all our offences And in this sense it was that Christ was delivered for our offences and God raised him up again on the third day to witness our Justification that his death was accepted of God as a Sacrifice for full satisfaction And in this sense it is said that God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. And thus I have shewed how Christ drunk the cup of martyrdom for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice And secondly That the cup of satisfaction by vertue of the free Covenant lies both in his Combate and Sacrifice but chiefly in his Sacrifice as the finishing act and formal price of all satisfaction But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 63. The sufferings of Christs soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediately Isa 53. 10. Matth. 26. 37. The cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body We sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly the greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spiritual and such as immediately seized on his soul Reply 13. To deny that Christs soul suffered by way of sympathy I suppose is to deny a truth for the immortal soul is There is a sympathy between the soul and body in sufferings united personally to the body by the sensitive soul and by vertue of this conjunction there is a communion by which means the soul may partake of the sufferings of the body by way of sympathy There are three things saith Irenaeus of which the intire See Dr. Hammons Annot. in 1 Thes 5. 23. perfect man consisteth Flesh Soul and Spirit The Soul saith he is betwixt the Flesh and Spirit and sometimes following the Spirit is elevated by it and sometimes consenting to the Flesh falls into earthly concupiscences And saith Jerom The Soul consisting between the Flesh and And Jerom. in Gal. 5. Spirit when it yeeldeth to the Flesh it is called flesh By this it appears there is a communion by sympathy But now because Christs humane nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost after the image of God we must say that his rational Will did cause his sensitive Will to follow it and therefore by his strong crying and prayers and tears in the Garden he obtained that his sensitive will which naturally abhorred and feared death was at last made like unto his rational will altogether fearless of death and therefore as soon as he had done praying he said to his Disciples Let us go meet them and then without any fear he went to meet all his sufferings and so by the perfection of his patience under them he did evidence the perfection of his obedience and in that perfection of obedience he finished all that was written of him and then he made his death a sacrifice by the joynt concurrence of both his natures and so at last without the least fear or striving in his sensitive will he breathed out his immortal soul But Mr. Norton confounds Christs sacrifice with his sufferings and hee confounds his sufferings from Satan with his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath in pag. 153. 213 c. But saith Mr. Norton in the former place of p. 63. His soul suffered properly and immediately Reply 14. First I have shewed in Chap. 12. at Sect. 4. that The sufferings of Christs soul in Mat. 26. 38. and Isa 53. 10. must chiefly be understood of Christs vital sâ—ul and not of his immortal soul Matth. 26. 38. Isa 53. 10. Christs soul did not suffer any thing at all from Gods immediate wrath Secondly I have shewed that the word Soul in these places is not in the first place meant of Christs immortal soul but of his vital soul for Nephesh in Isa 53. 10 and Psyche in Mat. 26. 38. for it is not as Mr. Norton cites it in v. 37. is not meant of Christs immortal soul but of his sensitive soul as I have before shewed in chap. 7. Nephesh saith Carlile is never used in the Old Testament for the immortal spirit and Psyche is very seldom used in the New Testament for the immortal spirit but saith he it is abundantly used for the sensitive soul Paul said to Epaphroditus that for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death not regarding his Soul Phil. 2. 30. And saith Christ The good Shepherd laieth down his soul for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. And saith Christ I am the good Shepherd I lay down my soul Joh. 10. 15. And therefore doth my father love me Joh. 10. 15 â—7 18 because I lay down my soul and take it
taken away my cattle and my children Job 1. In these words you see that Job ascribes all the evils that fell upon him to God because God permitted Satan to do what he did and therefore saith Job in Chap. 19. 21. The hand of God hath touched me In these words he called the Devil Gods hand because God gave the Devil leave to afflict him so as he did to try his patience and we see that Jobs patience in his first encounter with Satan was not disturbed And in this sense the word I must be understood in Matthew I will smite the shepherd that is to say I God will give Satan leave to smite the shepherd This is the true sense of Matthew and therefore this is no proof that God smote Christs soul from his immediate vindicative wrath The second Scripture to be examined is Isa 53. 10. It pleased Isa 53. 20. the Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief when he shall set out or give his soul to be a Trespass-Offering or as the Seventy read it a sin For this phrase set see Ains on Gen. 21. 13. 27. 37. and in Psa 8. 2. and Gen. 9. 12. 17. 5. This Scripture being rightly interpreted doth not mean that God was pleased to bruise Christ actively and so to put him to grief by his immediate wrath But it means that it pleased the Lord passively to put that is to permit and suffer Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief and so speaks our larger Annotation on these words He put him to grief or as some saith the Annotation he suffered him to be put to pain or torment because this form saith the Annotation hath oft in it a notion of permission as in Psal 37. 33. Psal 119. 10 116. and Isa 63. 17. and see more for this form in Reply 22. and in Ains in Psa 39. 9. and in Psa 16. 10. In this sense I say It pleased the Lord to bruise Christ and to put him to grief and just so it pleased the Lord to put an utter enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived sinful woman in Gen. 3. 15. there the Lord appointed the Devil by Gen. 3. 15. his permissive Commission to combate for the victory with the seed of the woman and in case the Devil could prevail to disturb his patience then the Victory was to go on his side but in case the seed of the woman did persevere in his patience and obedience through all the Devils ignominious trials and at last in that perfect obedience did make his vital soul a Sacrifice by breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power then the victory was to go on his side and then hee was to have the prize namely the Redemption of all the Elect. And in this sense also is Isa 53. 5. to bee understood He was Isa 53. â— wounded for our trangressions he was bruised for our iniquities God may be said to do this though not from his immediate wrath because he permitted Satan to do all this as I have expounded these words formerly And in this sense it is said in Psal 69. 27. They persecuted him whom thou hast smitten God is here said to smite Christ but yet not from his immediate wrath but by Satan and his Instruments God permitted Satan to do his worst to Christ to manifest the perfection of his obedience for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice but the Devils end was to disturb his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice And thus it pleased the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief namely by Satan and his Instruments and not by Gods immediate wrath And this I beleeeve is the plain genuine sense of Isaiah And because I judge this interpretation to bee of necessary consequence I will once more repeat it with some inlargement It pleased the Lord according to the counsel of his own will which hee first declared to us in Gen. 3. 15. to permit Satan to enter the Lists with the seed of the deceived woman to deceive him if he could and to that end he gave him his full liberty to deceive him by fraud or to provoke him by force to some sinful disturbance or other And thus it pleased the Lord to permit Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief by an ignominious and long lingring violent death to disturb his patience and obedience if hee could even at the same time when his soul shall set or give it self to bee a Trespass-offering that so hee might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and thereby might save his first grand Head-plot from being broken And it pleased the Lord also according to the counsel of his own will to Covenant to and with the Mediator that in case he held constant in his obedience through all Satans malicious stratagems and at last in that perfect obedience did give his soul to be a Trespass-offering then his obedience in his said sufferings should be for his perfect consecration and then his death should be accepted as an acceptable sacrifice of Reconciliation for all the Elect and then Gods Covenant with him was that hee should see his seed and prolong his dayes and that the pleasure of the Lord for mans actual Regeneration and Reconciliation should prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton doth often torment this heavenly sense of Isaiah with a contrary for hee makes Christ to combate with Gods immediate wrath and to suffer as a legal sinner and as our legal Surety from the judicial vindicative wrath of God even from his judicial vindicative Judgement-seat as in page 55 63 85 122 143 165 192 213 39 c. The third Scripture to bee examined is Rom. 8. 32. God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Hence Mr. Norton infers in page 122. That Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God saith he spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8. 32. Rom 8. 32. To this interpretation I Reply That Gods not sparing his Son but delivering him up for us all must not bee understood of Gods delivering him up to his own immediate wrath as Mr. Nortons sense doth carry it But of Gods delivering him up to his Combater Satan that so Satan might have his full liberty to do his worst unto him to provoke his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience by his ignominious and cruel usage that so he might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and that so hee might hinder him from breaking his first grand Head-plot In this sense God spared not his Son but gave him up for us all and in this sense God gave Satan liberty to use Pilate as his instrument to make Christ bear our sins in his body on the Tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. And therefore Christ said unto Pilate Thou couldest have no power
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
the Lists with the Devil according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith He entred the Lists to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father and instead of the Devils wrath they put in Gods wrath and instead of the Devils force they put in Gods force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled most unadvisedly used by Calvin and others And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviours Agony be sutable to the language of the holy Scriptures whether he was pressed and compelled by Gods immediate wrath And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil and his instruments according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it bee not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father and to be pressed under his wrath and to conflict with eternal death as Mr. Nortons phrases are was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father Perhaps you will answer hee was able because his humane nature subsisted in his divine I grant that it alwayes subsisted in the divine because the divine nature was never angry with the humane but yet it doth not follow that it was alwayes assisted and protected by the divine for then it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan and his instruments I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane that the infirmities of the humane might appear and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power But let it be as the objection would have it namely that his humane nature being assisted by his divine was able to indure to bee pressed under his Fathers wrath Then it wil follow from thence that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not onely with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him Reply 23. First I have shewed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures Secondly Was it ever heard that a Mediator between two at variance did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation These are paradoxes in Divinity by which the clear Truth is made obscure Such Tenents are like the smoak of the bottomless pit that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen nor heard before or since the true reason thereof saith he is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood then doubtless it was a miraculous sweâ—t and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it wrath of God Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cryes and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause But I perceive that Mr. Nortou himself is put in a wavering mind in p. 66. whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause for when he had expounded his Query he concludes thus We leave it to them that have leasure and skill to enquire And saith he Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meer natural death notwithstanding saith he our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument Hence 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfie a doubting conscience 2 This speech of his our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument is a plain acknowledgment that the Agony of Christ and his sweat like blood is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death and yet in p. 70 39 68 89 c. he laies great weight upon his Agony as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell but by Gods extraordinary dispensation as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature namely of the sensitive soul that is between mans mortal body and his immortal soul in a moment Seeing he holds that his death was caused by the wrath of God For he saith That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed For this is a clear Truth That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell untill it bee made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment whether the Greek word for this bloody sweat be noâ— stretched beyond the Context as well as hee hath done the word Amazed in Mark 14. 33. as I have shewed before 6 Hence it may be considered what a learned Divine saith There are some saith he that take Christs bloody sweat in that grievous agony to be a symptom of infernal pains But saith he from what grounds either in Phylosophy or Divinity I know noâ— If the pains of Hell or hellish pains so some distinguish be procured by the fire of Hell be that material or immaterial bloody sweat saith he can be no probable effect of the one or of the other fire nor is such sweat any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demonstrative sign
of pains more grievous than may be inflicted or suffered by patience meerly natural For saith he however in cold Countries bloody sweats be as rare in mens bodies as showres of blood in the Air. Yet as Curans a good Phylosopher hath long ago observed To sweat blood is not usuall to Italians yet usual onely as I take it to men of that Climat in some particular diseases The most remarkable instance which I have read of bloody sweat in a man not oppressed with any disease is a Captain an Italian if I mistake not who being surprised by the subtlety of his Enemy whom he had trusted too far upon a Tristee of Parly and thereby inforced either to yeeld up the Fort which he had stoutly maintained or otherwise to be presently hanged The consideration of this perplexity wherewith through his own folly he had intangled himself did make such a deep impression into his generous spirits that it squeezed blood out of his veins And as this sudden fear squeezed blood out of the veins of this Captain so in Reply 20. I have cited the speech of a Physician that saith thus 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 And saith the former Author our Savior no doubt as man had a more deep touch of all the malicious disgraces and cruel indignities which his enemies could put upon him than this Captain had The measure of his bodily sufferings and personal wrongs were in number far more and for quality more grievous than ever were intended to this Captain or any other mortal man by their enemies And though the death of the cross was in it self an ignominious and cruel death yet in our Saviors particular that was most true * Of the ignominious manner of his death and what I have said on 1 Sam. 31. 4. There Saul did so loathe to be put to a disgraceful death by the mockings of the Philistims that he prayed his Armor-hearer rather to kill him as I have noted it in Gal 3. 13. at Reply 6. And Sampson rather than to live to be an ignominious mocking-stock to the Philistims desired to die Judg. 16. 25 26. Mortis modus morte pejor The manner of his Apprehension of his double Arraign ment and Conviction of his usage before he was brought to the place of Execution and all the time whiles the malice of the Jew and Gentile was wrecked upon him was more grievous than the death of the Cross it self without these grievous concommitants could have been 7 I find that many Divines though they hold that Christ suffered in soul from the immediate wrath of God upon the cross yet they do not hold that his Agony in the Garden was from the sense of the immediate wrath of God upon his soul But his sorrow and dread there they make to be in relation of what he was afterwards to suffer upon the cross and the fear of that say they was the cause of his bloody sweat First Dr. Williams saith That the clear sight and consideration Dr. Williams in his seven golden Candle-sticks p 143 144. Bradshaw on justific p. 75. of that cup which he was to drink was the cause of his Agony Secondly Saith Mr. Bradshaw Whiles he hung upon the accursed tree he had such a deep sense of the incomparable wrath of God that the very apprehension thereof before it seized upon him made him sweat drops of blood Thirdly Saith George Downham The fear of Gods wrath In his Coven of Grace p. 68. when he was in his Agony caused him to sweat great drops of blood Luk. â—2 44. And saith he the sense thereof on the cross made him cry My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee Fourthly Saith Mr. Wall In his Agony in the Garden he Wall in his none but Christ p. 27. sweat drops not of water but of blood c. and all this in expectation of what he should suffer when no hand touched him but his own thoughts of what he was to suffer I could cite divers others that speak to this purpose But these are sufficient to evidence thus much that many of the learned do hold that though Christ suffered the wrath of God upon the cross yet they deny he suffered the wrath of God in his Agony in the Garden and therefore his bloody sweat is no certain reason to prove that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God in the Garden as Mr. Norton holds though after he hath affirmed it he doth again leave it doubtful which doth not well agree to the property of a Judicious Consuter Fifthly Seeing such eminent Divines as I have above cited do hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God not in the Garden but on the cross onely once for all It shews that Mr. Norton hath not so many Divines on his side as he intimates ever and anon by us and our and we say as in p. 44 c. 8 It is also very considerable that there are sundry learned Divines that deny that our Savior sweat blood and therefore they do much more deny that he sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton affirms he did for the original word they say his sweat was as it were great drops of blood And first So speaks the Greek Text plainly And secondly So do our Translators interpret it And thirdly Saith Dr. Hammon in his paraphrase on Luk. 22. 44. He sweat as men in agonies are wont great glutenous drops like those of blood when it drops on the ground and saith hee in his Annotation That Christ sweat drops of blood is not affirmed in this place but only that he sweat drops of sweat of a strange thickness or viscousness and consequently as big as when blood is wont to fall upon the ground So saith Justin Martyr Theophylact and Entymius And truly I may well adde this That seeing his sweat was in the open air and in a cold night it might well thicken as it ran down his body and bee glutenous before it fell to the ground And saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as or as it were doth note some resemblance as saith he the Spirit descended as it were a Dove Matth. 3. 16. somewhat resembling a Dove So the Manna was like Coriander-seed in shape and quantity but not in colour 9 Christopher Carlile in his Descent page 46. saith Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood 10 So John Frith the Martyr saith thus to Sir Thomas Moore See his Ans to Sir Tho. Moor p. 34. as it is printed with Tindals works Christ did not only weep but feared so sore that he sweat like drops of blood running down upon the earth which was more than to weep Now saith he If I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so fore what would
great that it caused him to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground And when he had three times offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from the natural dread of his ignominious torturing death he was heard and delivered from the natural fear of his vital soul because of his godly fear in his rational soul and then he was confirmed against his natural fear and so he never feared more after this and then as soon as he had fulfilled all his sufferings he did in perfection of patience and obedience make his vital soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation for mans Redemption This Relation of Christs Combate and of his Agony in his Combate is every way agreeable to the scope of the blessed Scriptures and therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs bee dangerous because he makes this Combate to be between Christs humane nature and his divine being pressed under the sense of Gods wrath and conflicting with eternal death and so forcing out clods of blood as wine is forced from the grapes by Gods pressing wrath such expressions of pressing do utterly destroy the voluntariness of Christs obedience in his suffering and do make him to be no lesse than an inherent sinner in his Death and Sacrifice CHAP. XVII SECT I. The Examination of Psal 22. 1. with Matth. 27. 46. THe Dialogue cites Mr. Broughton saying My God my God sheweth That Christ was not forsaken of God but that God was still his hope 2 Saith he The word Forsaken is not in the Text But why dost thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews as they are expressed in the body of the Psalms 3 Saith he None ever propounded one matter and made his amplification of another But Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men and not from Gods anger And therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that hee had forsaken his soul in anger for our sins c. Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 78. The Hebrew as also the Syriack used by our Saviour in Mat. 27. 46. and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint signifie to leave another helpless in their necessity and extremity which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations signifies to help up that which is down and to forâ—iâ—ie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. And such leaving we usually express by forsaking and accordingly it is read by Latine Expositors â—romiscuously who do in effect say with Mr. Ainsworth there is no material diffâ—rence between leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound Reply 1. He saith that this Hebrew word Azab to leave is one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations The Hebrew word Azab hath two contrary significations as Mr. Norton affirmeth to amuse his Reader about Gods forsaking Christ I wish he do not cast a mist in this speech as well before his own eyes as before his Readers Though I am no Linguist yet I love and approve such as do labor to use the Originals to the advantage of the truth and to the profit of the Reader But as far as I can learn this Hebrew word Azab is none of those that have two contrary significations if there be any such when things are searched to the bottom but yet I freely grant that this word as well as many others have several differing significations but not contrary namely a proper signification and a metaphorical But saith Mr. Norton It hath two contrary significations First Because it signifies to help up that which is down as well as to leave or forsake Reply 2. I grant that Azab by a necessary consequence from the context doth signifie helping up that which is down and in this he alludes to Exod. 23. 5. and there the words run thus Exod. 23. 5. If thou see the Ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden and wouldest forbear to help him thou shall surely help with him I grant that our Translation doth twice in this Text render Azab to help but yet in the Margin they translate it to leave in both places according to the propriety of the Hebrew thus wouldest cease to leave thy business for him thou shalt surely leave it to joyn with him hence it follows by a necessary consequence that if he must leave his business to joyn with his hater whose Ass lies under his burden it must be to help him and in this respect the Translators may well render Azab to help And to the like sense doth Ainsworth translate it in his Annotations When thou shalt see thy haters Ass lying under his burden then thou shalt cease from forsaking him and hence it follows that he that ceaseth from forsaking his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him And therefore in the next clause Mr. Ainsworth reads it thus Thou shalt leaving leave thine own business to be with him thou shalt not leave him by passing away on the other side of the way as the Priest and the Levite did from the wounded man but thou shalt leave thy hatred to help him as the Samaritan did Luk. 10. 33 34. And according to this sense the Seventy render it thus Thou shalt not pass by the same that is thou shalt not leave his Ass under his burden but shalt raise up the same together with him And the Chalde speaks thus Thou shalt leave what is in thine heart against him and hence it follows That he that leaves what is in his heart against his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him Therefore from hence I conclude that the Translating of Azab to help is more from the sense of the Context than from the proper sense of the word and therefore though it be translated to help up yet that doth not prove it to have a contrary sense to leave it onely proves that Azab may be taken in a various sense according to the circumstances of the Context where it is used The like he affirms of a contrary sense in other words p. 48. and he gives three instances To which I answer that they are not contrary though different in respect of the metaphorical sense and so the word Tzedec Righteousness is often put for a counterfeit righteousness which in proper speaking is unrighteousness in Gods sight And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness Secondly Saith Mr. Norton Azab signifies to Fortifie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortifie is contrary to leaving and forsaking in case it can have no other sense in the place cited But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation which is
his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner â—â— Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his body actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymâ— there also Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4. 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saith true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with thâ— curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue
M. Norton passeth over never speaks to it first or last which is this He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice must be a Priest but the death of Christ was a Sacrifice therefore he that takes away his life formally must be the Priest Hence the Dialogue infers that the Roman Souldiers did not take away his life formally because they were Executioners rather than Priests neither did his Fathers wrath take away his life formally because he was not the Priest and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself and therefore none but he must take away his life formally Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument but he passeth by this and pleads that Christs suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments was full satisfaction and thence he must also hold that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christs death Heb. 9. 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion when there is not one Text nor I beleeve one Classical Author who affirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrary plentiful Texts and Testimonies that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9 12. and 6 9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus But also the Scriptures themselves in saying The Jews did not actually put Christ to death Reply 23. I have shewed immediately afore that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews with murthering the Lord of life yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors some ancient and some later that concur with the Dialogue That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice 1 Athanasius câ—nt Arianos Orat. 4. saith To have power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again this is not the property of men but it is the power of the Son of God for no man dyeth by his own power but by necessity of nature and that against his will but Christ being God had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body and to resume the same again when hee would 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9. saith Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh when he saith None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17 1â— down and power to take it again Let us consider what he meaneth who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death This neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus for if Christ had dyed as the Theeves did that were crucified with him he could not have said That he laid down his soul of himself but after the manner of such as dye but now Jesus crying with a strong voyce gave up the ghost and as a King left his body his power greatly appeared in this that at his own free power and will leaving his body he dyed 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur Chr. Orat. 1. saith Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself of whom dependeth all power how with full and sovereign power and not by necessity of nature he severed his soul from his body as he said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again 4 Turtullian de Resur carnis cap. 48. saith thus The Lord though he carried about a soul fearing unto death yet not falling by death 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith With a faint voyce or rather speechless we dye that are of the earth but he which came from heaven breathed out his soul with a loud voyce Ibid. ad Hedibiam Q. 8. Wee must say it was a shew of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again yea the Centurion hearing him say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and streight way of his own accord to send forth his spirit moved with the greatness of this wonder said Truly this was the Son of God 6 Chrysostome in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith Therefore Christ cryed with a loud voyce that hee might shew this to be done by his own power Mark saith That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead and the Centurion also therefore chiefly beleeved because he saw Christ dye of his own accord and power 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith By so doing the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare that he had his whole life and death in his own free power wherefore Mark saith that Pilate not without admiration asked if Christ were already dead he addeth likewise that the Centurion chiefly for that reason beleeved because hee saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry and signification of great power 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini saith What intreaty for lite shall wee think was there where the soul was both sent out with power and recalled with power 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund lib. 3. saith Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would and take it again when he would how great power might the God-head of Christ have And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John on these words None taketh my soul from me saith No birth-Law taketh my soul from me no incroaching time that tameth all things nor necessity which is unchangeable counsel but ruler of my self I of my own accord yeeld up my willing soul 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voyce sent forth the Spirit saith In that the Evangelist saith Christ sent out his Spirit he sheweth it is a point of Divine power to send out the soul was As Christ himself said None can take my soul from me Ibid. In Mark 15. he saith For none hath power to send out the soul but he that is the Creator of souls 12 Theophilact in Matth. 27. saith Jesus cryed with a loud voyce that we should know it was true which he said I have power to lay down my soul for not constrained but of his own accord he dismissed his soul Ibid. Saith he in Mar. 15. The Centurion seeing that he breathed out his soul so like a Commander of death wondered and confessed him Ibid. Saith he in Luk.
if a man should put off his cloathes Or else secondly That he died of his own accord The first of these two ways is active and the similitude as if a man put off his cloaths I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard for both of them use this similitude to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body 26 John White of Dorchester in his Way to the Tree of Life page 186. saith at lastly When he was nailed to the Cross hee voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father as it is evident both in that he was dead a good space before the two Theeves that were crucified with him whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they and besides by yeelding up his life when it was yet whole in him as it evidently appeared by his loud cry which he uttered at the very instant of his death as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37 39. and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life according to the will of his Father for his peoples sins And Mr. Perkins on the Creed p. 141. agreeth thus far That the state and condition of our Saviours body on the Cross was such that he might have lived longer yet saith he by the Council of God he must to die at that place at that time and at that hour where and when he died And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 yeers exactly cut out Dan. 9. 24. 27 John Trâ—p in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus Jesus cried with a loud voyce therefore saith he he laid down his life at his own pleasure for by his loud out-cry it appeared that he could have lived longer if he had listed for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body but much greater in his soul And saith Trap in Joh. 19. 33. He took his own time to die Joh. 19. 33. and therefore in vers 30. it is said He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost And saith he he cried also with a loud voyce and dyed which shewes that hee wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer if it had pleased him 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks pag. 492. in Quarto And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons over-bold and false charge But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse the one opposeth not the other Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was com But I say also that had they been put to answer this Question Whether did the formality of Christs satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost They would soon have answered That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience by his own Priestly power and the reason is plain because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods attonement and there can bee no formality of a sacrifice but by giving up the ghost or in case any shall deny this Answer I beleeve they will intangle themselves in other inconveniences that they cannot escape as long as they deny the said Answer 2 I say further That the one doth most evidently oppose the other namely in the formality of satisfaction for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christs spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death and sometimes contradicts that and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before his death was compleated as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm then the formality of his death and sacrifice was altogether needless as to the point of satisfaction which is high blasphemy to affirm Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth joyn his spiritual death and his bodily death together in the point of satisfaction as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death as in pag. 122 153 174 213 c. And thus he makes Christ to dye in a cloud for he makes the soul of Christ to depart out of his body under the cloud of Gods vindicative wrath when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit But in page 32. he doth contradict this for there he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second death before he suffered his natural death And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death In both these places you see that he doth hold That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ And hence it follows that he doth most dangerously affirm that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine This reason drawn from the final cause of Christs sufferings is most derogatory to the infinit worth of Christs bloody sacrifice On the other hand when hee makes him to dye formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God Hee makes the Father to be the Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here
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