The Meritorious Price OF MANS REDEMPTION OR Christs Satisfaction discussed and explained 1 By shewing how the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ did satisfie Gods Justice pacifie his Wrath and procure his Reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot 2 By vindicating the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ from that most dangerous Scripture-less Tenenâ— that is held forth by Mr. Norton of New England in his Book of Christs Sufferings affirming that he suffered the Essential Torments of Hell and the second death from Gods immediate vindicative wrath 3 By shewing that the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ in relation to his Office of Mediatorship is a distinct sort of obedience from his moral obedience in Chapter the third and elsewhere 4 By shewing that the Righteousness of God so called in Rom. 3. 21 22 26 in Rom. 10. 3 in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Phil. 3. 9. is to be understood of God the Fathers performance of his Covenant with Christ namely that upon Christs performance of his Covenant by combating with Satan and at last by making his death a sacrifice he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners and not impute their sins to them And therefore 1. This Righteousness of God must needs be the formal cause of a sinners justification And 2. It must needs be a distinct sort of Righteousness from the Righteousness of Christ contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent This is evidenced in Chap. 14. and elsewhere 5 By explaining Gods Declaration of the combate between the Devil and the seed of the woman in Gen. 3. 15. from whence as from the foundation-principle this present Reply doth explain all the after prophecies of Christs Sufferings 6 By clearing several other Scriptures of the greatest note in these Controversies from Mr. Nortons corrupt Expositions and by expounding them in their right sense Both according to the Context and according to sundry eminent Orthodox Writers By William Pynchon Esq late of New England London Printed by R. I. for Thom. Newberry and are to be sold at his Shop in Cornhil over against the Conduit near the Royal Exchange 1655. To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the sâ—ed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-saols for a sinful Male factor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this seed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be
25 136 233 258 ib. 26 134 140 180 228 ib. 27 15 244 ib. 31 125 4 Â 88 ib. 25 312 5 9 10 229 ib. 12 31 ib. 14 31 153 ib. 16 240 and so it is translated justified in Syracides 14 20. ib. 18 135 211 228 233 240 ib. 19 16 153 211 233 343 8 3 49 226 237 and see the Dialogu p. 116 ib. 4 119 237 238 260 ib. 23 29 ib. 32 95 179 312 350 9 31 244 10 3 138 232 237 ib. 4 242 15 30 335 1 Corinth 1 24 25 424 6 11 237 259 260 ib. 20 256 9 24 178 340 15 29 306 ib. 30 53 29 2 Corinth 5 21 207 13 4 423 3 13 262 ib. 16 342 4 4 5 47 5 11 270 Philippians 1 30 340 2 6 132 139 ib. 8 9 124 344 ib. 9 10 11 177 3 9 120 123 233 Twice ib. 10 11 370 4 3 340 Colossians 1 21 22 434 ib. 29 340 2 14 15 124 146 344 234 419 1 Tim. 2 6 256 4 10 340 2 Tim. 2 5 178 4 7 8 178 340 Titus 2 14 p. 50 259 Philemon v. 18 Â 87 219 and see Peter Martyrs Com. pl. part p. 4. 263. Hebrews 1 3 p. 252 2 10 17 90 92 93 344 386 427 430 ib. 14 90 294 357 419 ib. 17 18 165 170 194 4 16 136 140 5 6 169 ib. 7 299 303 334 336 7 22 115 118 ib. 21 426 ib. 28 90 8 3 430 ib. 12 139 233 258 9 110 49 118 235 260 ib. 13 48 51 120 214 235 260 432 ib. 14 90 137 214 43â— ib. 15 16 90 137 181 420 4â—8 ib. 18 23 120 ib. 22 124 ib. 24 196 ib. 26 49 195 ib. 27 28 147 358 10 4 433 ib. 5 294 ib. 7 43 ib. 10 46 122 124 237 259 ib. 32 340 12 2 146 178 269 339 13 13 270 1 Peter 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition in this THe Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of his Father and his own voluntary consent obeyed the Law doing the Command in a way of Works and suffering the Essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original Righteousnesse as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth to beleeving Sinners for their Righteousnesse Reply I deny several things in this Proposition to be true But because all the particulars are but barely affirmed here though some proofs are hereafter alleged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annâ—xed In the mean time the Reader may please to take notice That I deny first That Christ made any such Covenant by his voluntary consent with his Father as to be bound in the same obligation with Adam to fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction Secondly That the first Covenant made with Adam was not touching his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law but it was touching his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature CHAP. II. And first the true Nature of the first Covenant is Discussed SECTION 1. Where also Mr. Nortons second Proposition is examined which is this GOD in the First Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalâ— live Lev. 185. But in the doy thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Iustice Mr. Norton proves by these two Scriptures that the nature of the first Covenant made with Adam was in relation to his obedience and disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature and he doth make great account of both these Scriptures because he cites them very often to that sense And in Page 186. He affirms that God propounded the Law of Works to man before his fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience And in Page 189. He saith That the summe of this Law is the two Tables and saith he it is called the Law of Works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life Lev. 18. 5. And this Law he calls Moral positive the habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of the Creation this binds perpetually and it is immutable And in Page 190. he saith The Transgression them of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the said Law of Works which was given to Adam and afterwards to Moses Reply 1. In opposition to Mr. Nortons description of the nature of the first Covenant I shall labour to prove that the true nature of the first Covenant was in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and not aâ—out the Moral Law of nature My first Reason is this If God made a Covenant with Adam concerning his obedience The first Covenant was not made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the Moral law of nature but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a positive Command about things indifferent in their own nature or disobedience about his eating of the two Trees the one called the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which was indifferent to be eaten or not eaten in their own nature then the first Covenant was not made concerning his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature unlesse Mr. Norton will affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam in his Innocency of a differing nature the one of positive and the other of moral Commands But it is absurd to affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam of such a differing nature Therefore one of the two must needs be null But the Covenant concerning the two Trees cannot be null because that Covenant is expressed in the Text therefore hence it follows that the moral Law of nature was not propounded to Adam as the first Covenant of works with the promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience as Mr. Norton affirmeth upon Scriptures mis-interpreted and on this sandy foundation he builds the greatest part of his Answer to the Dialogue The first Covenant was made with Adam concerning mans nature in general as he was the head of all mankind and that Covenant was this Eat of the Tree of life in the first place for I have ordained it as thou mayest perceive by the name given to it for the confirmation of thy created natural perfections to thee and to all thy seed for ever as these places conferred together do prove Gen. 1. 29. Gen. 2. 9. Gen 3.
2. Gen. 3 22. and as I have also expounded in my Book of the Institution of the In his descent into Hell p. 163. 172. Sabbath And saith Christopher Carlile where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual Number it signifieth Immortality as Gnets Cojim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality and so when Neshamaâ— hath Caijm joyned to it it signifies the soul is immortal in Gen. 2. 7. Secondly Though this promise is not altogether so plainly expressed in the Text as the Threatning is yet seeing the Threatning Iâ— the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye is expressed plainly as the reward of his disobedient eating it follows by consequent saith Mr. Burges that some good thing is promised to obedience And what else say I can that good See Vindiciae legis lect 13. p. 123. Vindiciae Faederis â— 9. And Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 6 8. thing be but the confirmation of his present mutable created perfections by his obedient eating of the Tree of life for in case he had but first eaten of that Tree that once eating should by Gods Covenant have confirmed his nature in his present created persections to him and to all his posterity for ever Thirdly saith Mr. Ball the Lord having respect to the immutability of Adams Nature was pleased to try this obedience by symbolical Precepts But when the creature should grow to absolute perfection and unchangeablenesse then such symbolical Precepts and outward Seals should cease as needlesse It is generally granted that the Command concerning the two Trees was but for the present triall of Adams obedience And hence it follows that as soon as the triall was made which was to be made in the very day of Adams creation for God had determined to finish all his Works both of the visible and invisible Creation both of the earthly and of the spiritual Creation in six dayes as I have shewed at large in the Institution of the Sabbath then these symbolical signs of the two Trees must cease as needlesse God was pleased to promise the confirmation of his present natural perfections for one act of obedience so that had Adam but once eaten of the Tree of â—â—â—e as doubtlesse in wisdome he would have done before any other fruit if the Devil had not suddenly circumvented him by his Serpentine subtilty he had been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him for ever and then these symbolical Precepts should have ceased as needlesse as we see by experience they did cease upon Adams once eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill and so in like manner they should have ceased in case he had but once eaten of the Tree of life for when a Covenant is once fulfilled it ceaseth to be a Covenant any more for the performer hath the perpetual fruition of the benefit of it and so in like sort the will of God was that the once offering of the body of Christ should merit the eternal salvation of all the Elect Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 7. 27. Heb 9. 28. Fifthly This was the first Covenant saith Mr. Clendon wherein there is no mention of obedience to the moral Law In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 22. Secondly saith he Adam was under the obedience of the moral Law before God made any Covenant with him Gen. 1. 27. God created man in his own Image and this Image of God did stand in perfect Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse so that at the first instant of Adams creation he was under the obedience of the Moral Law even before God brought him into Paradise for he was created out of Paradise but the Covenant was not made with him till after he came into Paradise and being created perfect in knowledge he did perfectly know the eternal will of God and accordingly he did perfectly obey it And it may well be called the Law of nature but not a Covenant of nature because no promise of any reward was made to Adam for keeping the moral Law therefore perfect obedience to the moral Law was not the condition of the first Covenant but it was a necessary condition of mans perfection and a necessary consequent of Gods perfection that man was so created Sâ—xthly It is not necessary saith Mr. Burges to make it a question whether the breach of the moral Law would have In vindiciae legâ—s p. 118. undone Adam and his posterity as well as the transgression of the positive Law for all must necessarily think that the moral Law planted in his heart And obedience thereunto was the greatest part of Adams happinesse and holinesse Mark that he saith And obedience thereunto In which speech he doth fully concur with Mr. Clendon that Adam could not sin a moral sin Seventhly Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith The Law given to the In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51. first Adam non comedendi was over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit And a little after he calls it That special Law of not eating the forbidden fruit which waâ— unto Adam praeceptum symbolicum as Divines call it given over and above and besides all the ten Commandements for a trial of his obedience to all the rest And such saith he was this Law given to Christ the second Adam Eighthly saith Mr. Blake The wicked Jews at their worst In vindiciae Faederis p 60. could observe the command of non licet meats And the Command to Adam saith he was of a like nature But saith Mr. Norton in Page 189. As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws which were accessory Commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles So God at the Creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1. 27. After that gave him this accessory Command concerning the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill Gen. 2. 17. part of and reducible thereto as a conclusion to its principle And in Page 90. He concludes that the transgression of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a transgression of the same Law of works which was given afterwards by Moses Reply 2. This comparative Argument will not hold because there is a great difference between the moral Law of nature as it was written in Adams heart and the Decalogue as it was after given by Moses 1 The moral Law written in Adams heart is therefore called the moral Law of nature because it was made connatural to him in his first creation But the Decalogue was given by Moses to fallen Adam and it was given as a Covenant of grace in Christ 2 The Decalogue as it was given by Moses to fallen Adam was given for the most part by way of prohibition to restrain mans corrupt nature But because Adam was created after Godâ— Image in moral
perfections it was not sutable to be so given to him 3 There is not the like Reason why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the moral Law of nature as there is why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the Decalogue for the Decalogue was given as a Covenant of grace and therefore all the types of grace in Christ do appertain to it by vertue Gods positive Command which forbids many things that are indifferent in their own nature 4 The moral Law of nature did not injoyn Adam to observe every seventh day as a day of rest as the Decalogue doth 5 The fourth Command and some others in the Decalogue are partly of a moral Constitution and partly of a positive See Trap on Mat. 〈◊〉 p 132. Dr. Ames in Medul c. 15. Sect. 12. vindiciae legis p. 62. 148. 213. As for example to observe some time for Gods special worship is moral but the determination of every seventh day is positive 6 The moral Law of nature did not require faith in Christ nor repentance for sin as the Decalogue doth and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings c. must needs belong to it Seeing then there is so great a difference This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue Reason 2. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin If Adams eating had been a sin against the moral Law then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating against the moral Law then the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it had been a moral sin before her act of eating for the Text saith It was a desire to her eyes and she saw it was good for food and a Tree to be desired c. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxime of all that expound the moral Law that it binds the inward man as well as the outward and so saith our Saviour He that look◠upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart Math. 5. 28. And in that respect Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we in Adam first sinned in soul properly And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons Divinity that there was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating And then her Adam sinned not in soul untill he had first sinned in body act of eating had not been her first sin as usually it is esteemed and called and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm In the day thou eatest thereof and not in the day thou desirest to eat shalt thou dye the death Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food and that it was a desire to her eyes yet if then she had but stayed her desire here and had gone no further she had not sinned For such positive Laws as this do not bind the inward man but the outward man only 1 Take this Instance If a Jew had desired to eat Swines flesh to satisfie his hunger because it was good food by creation and yet had forborn the act of eating he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purifie himself by washing in regard of his said inward desire to eat 2 Take another Instance It was a Ceremonial sin by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corps because it defiled the outward man only and not because it defiled the conscience for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience at least upon some of his near relations not only to desire but really to touch his dead Corps and to carry it to its burial 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford The Law of God because it is holy In Christs dying at Asser 5. p. 141. and spiritual doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motions of our soul and the Law of nature but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God such as was the Lords Command that Christ should dye for sinners is not required in the Law of God If Adam saith he had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit and had not eaten there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil And at Asser 4. page 140. he saith thus A conditional and submissive desire though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God is no sin nor doth the Law positive require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire Gods Command to Abraham saith he to kill his only Son and to offer him a sacrifice to God was a meer positive Command for it is not a command of the Law of Nature nor any other then positive for the Father to kill the Son yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love commanded also in the Law of nature to save his Sons life and doth desire that he may still live this desire and inclination though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God is no sin because the fifth Commandement grounded on the Law of nature did command it And Christs desire that the Cup might passe from him was Mat. 26. 39. The Command of God for Christ to dye was not a moral but a positive Command no sin Mat. 26. 39. Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command as Mr. Norton holds but a positive command and that command saith he did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversly propounded but at thirdly saith he the Father bargains by way of work or hire or wages to give a seed to his Son Es 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his Seed and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue affirmeth That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life was a moral Command and that Christs obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law in page 57. c. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him yet in this he is point blank against him These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws do prove that Adam sinned not in soul but in body only at first by his
out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premiseâ— 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he had by that act discovered himself to Adam as he did to Christ to be naught then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation for then Adams will would have been governed by his inlightnedmind and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature as they were to Christ and then he would have said to Sathan as Christ did Hence Sathan and then Sathan could not have prevailed afterwards for Adams wisdome was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place as the best food for his confirmation 3 Hence it follows That Adam did not first sin in soul as Mr. Norton holds and as indeed he had done in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature but his sin was only against that positive Law that did only forbid his bodily act of eating as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works 4 Hence it follows That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant about things indifferent in their own nature p. 188. is sound and good namely in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of such a positive Law as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law 5 Hence it follows That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life as his wisdome would have caused him to do in the very first place if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him they should have had a propagated Righteousnesse because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a publick person saith Mr. Burges and also generally all Protestant Divines 6 Hence it follows That the moral Law in Adams nature was not ordained for Adams justification as Mr. Norton holds The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adams justification but as a condition only oâ— his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of liâ—e but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection for God could not make man perfect but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law But Mr. Norton saith in page 231. That four things were requisite to Adams justification by the works of the Law And at fourthly he saith That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience Reply From this Assertion it follows That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity and yet have failed at last and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years space and all the rest after that time after the image of Sathan And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this namely That upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law And saith he in Page 244 Adams justification consisted not in one act of obedience This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant For it is acknowledged by Bucanus whom I No act of Adams obedience had been imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act in eatting of the tree of â—iâ—e in case he had stood have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3. that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first and that first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was not so much personal as natural namely it was common to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adams obedience That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant See Vindicae Legis also in p. 1 19 120. Secondly Hence also it follows That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life that act also had justified him no further but from Sathans accusaâ—ion And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life But any man that hath but half an eye may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses but especially to the Ceremonial Law And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall except only of justification from the Devils accusation and temptation as I said before for no doubt the Dâ—vil had said to God as he said afterwards against Job that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam then Adam would disobey as they had done But in case Adam had not yeelded to Sathans temptation but had taken warning by the prohibition and by the threatning and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit but had first eaten of the Tree of life then he had been justified by that act against Sathans accusation and temptation but he needed no justification in respect of his
was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us with out some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent â—and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. placâ— original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adam means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a siâ—gle person Wille in Rom. 5. Q 19. that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he Thâ— othâ—â— sins of Adam were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father but the soul that sinneth shall dye And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sins propagated to posterity but only the first between which and his other sins there was this difference That by the first the goodnesse of mans nature was lost And by the other the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away 1 Hence it follows that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person as it was against mans nature in general for it was against the Covenant that God made with him touching mans nature in general he being the head of mans nature therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams sinning and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation so then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inslicted on Adams nature for his sinfull act against the first Covenant by eating of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin which is now become nature to us because the Covenant being broken the punishment must fall on ouâ— nature as soon as we have any being in nature but bodily death was not then formally executed neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb as death in sin is but after some distance of time neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement and therefore no other death was threatned and formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams eating but a spiritual death in sin only Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement Such as are alive saith he at the day of Judgement shall not formally dye by the separation of their soul from their body So then it follows by good consequence that neither a bodily death nor eternal death in hell was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams sinning but a spiritual death in sin onely And Dr. Willet saith That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer and not a potential only not that Adams soul saith Mr. Perkins was now utterly abolished but because it was as though it were not and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse and fellowship with God and indeed saith he This is the Death In the right way of dying well p. 490. of all deaths when the creature hath subsisting and being and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God The second Circumstance that proves this death threatned to be meant only of death in sin is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised to the death here threatned Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant was the confirmation and the continuance of his created natural perfections The life promised to Adam and so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his câ—eated perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever in case he did first eat of the Tree of life once eating should have merited the blessing as once eating did merit the curse and this was signified by the name that was given to that Tree it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant And saith Christopher Carlisle where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the duall number it signifieth immortality as genetes Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought immortality and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Crotius Camero Bre. in Eccl. the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise that age should not consume and end his life Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it
Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. 11. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But faith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is so be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statue of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. 8. 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled is on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Iebovah bath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Tement was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Levz 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operate to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience from their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Iesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word Better Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation
actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zanchy Tract Theol c 4. de peccato originall the body is corrupt it resisteth the soul and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning obeyeth the inclination thereof and is governed by it and therefore hence it follows First That Adams sin was not a sin against the moral Law for there is no sin against the moral Law properly till the soul consent Secondly Hence it follows That the guilt of Adams bodily sin was not imputed to his soul till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses Bâ—t the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found
is evident that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace And this Mr. Ball shews abundantly in page 102. 130 135 166 178. c. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus Paul describeth the righteousnesse In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5 6. from these words Do this and live which are said to have reference to Lev. 18. 5. But saith he We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse which is by faith and saith he Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speaks of the Law Paul doth apply it to the Gospel 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace in page 229. c. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law Do this and live 5 Mr. Baxter saith Do this and live is a Gospel condition In his Saints Rest p 9. 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shall live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man do he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19. Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut. 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ faith in Matth. 7. 21. He that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and said the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Ioh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be understood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural to him and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised
sin as well as in his guilt and therefore the guilt of his sin is justly imputed to Infants as well as unto others and this example doth stâ—ew us that sin and guilt are relates in the same subject and not in two distinct subjects and this David did acknowledge in Ps 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Mark this he doth acknowledge that God did not onely forgive his sin but the iniquity guilt or punishment of his sin namely condemnation but not all outward punishments In these words I say it is evident that David doth acknowledge that sin and guilt do cleave as close together as the skin and flesh do to the bones and the like he doth acknowledge in Psal 41. 5. and therefore if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ then out of doubt sin it self was imputed to Christ also and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do Secondly touching the point of Gods imputation I beleeve it cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that God doth impute either guilt or any other thing to any person unless the thing imputed have first a real existence in the subject as for example God did not impute saith to Abraham for righteousness until faith had a real existence in him as the subject and the like must be said of any thing else that God imputes therefore if God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ then it follows that he was indeed guilty of sin So that by Mr. Nortons unadvised collections either Christ was a true inherent sinner or else the Father was a true sinner in making a false imputation I wish that Mr. Norton may finde sound light from the Scriptures to get himself fairly out of this dilemma But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 33. To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly and not onely as a legal Surety so sin is imputed to the offender Lev. 17. 4. Or that which is not his properly but as a legal Surety onely so Philemon may put Onesimus debt upon Paul ver 18. Or by Way of grace so the word impute is rased ten times in Rom. 4. Reply 4. To impute in Court-language I wonder where that Court-language is used in Scripture about Gods proceeding with Christ in point of satisfaction Surely the blessed Scriptures have no such language and therfore surely he had need to get better proofs than any he hath hitherto produced to prove that Christ was a Delinquent-surety in law which I beleeve he will never be able to prove or else his Court-proceedings in point of satisfaction will fail him but I conceive I have sufficiently shewed in Chap. 2. that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam in the first Covenant and the matter is so plain that he that runs may read it in the very letter of the Text In the day thou eaâ—est thereof thou shalt dye Thou as the head of mans nature in general thou shalt die as I have shewed in ch 2 Sect. 3. Christ cannot be comprehended as Adams Surety in this word Thou unless Mr. Norton will make him to be one of Adams natural posterity according to the manner of other men Christ was not Adams Sureâ—y to the fiâ—st Covenaâ—t none but Adam as he was the head of mans â—aâ—â—â—e in general was in the first Covenant See also Reply 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 17. In his appendix to justif p. 143 besides the threatning to be suffered is plainly directed to the sinner himself in person and therefore Christ was not in that obligation and therefore also Mr. Nortons Court-language of imputation of guilt to Christ as to our legal Surety is no Scripture-language it is but human language By reason of the obligation upon us saith Mr. Baxter we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore saith he Christs punishment was not in the obligation but onely ours and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed and whereas the satisfaction of Christ saith he is called a gracious acceptation a gracious imputation c. How can any man saith he call it so if it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ paid to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation needeth no favour to procure acceptance This very acknowledgement that Christs satisfaction was accepted of grace doth clearly intimate that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam or else it had been no favour to accept it of him The Father saith Mr. Blake might have refused his discharge from the hand of Christ and might have exacted it of the See Blake on the Covenant p. 18. principal and Christ also might have refused to make such payment because he was not in the obligation These Reverend Divines and divers others do plainly see and acknowledge that Christ was not our Surety in the same obligation with Adam Secondly as Mr. Norton hath found out one clear Scripture namely Lev. 17. 4. to prove that God doth impute sin properly to the offender so if he could have sound out another Scripture as clear to prove that God doth impute guilt to one that is no sinner then he had hit the nayl upon the head But as for that place he brings of Philemon ver 18. saying So might Philemon Phil. v. 18. put Onesimus debt upon Paul it is not to the purpose because it is but an instance of a civil imputation not divine from the meer voluntary cause in Paul and not from the revenging justice of Pbilemon of which voluntary offer much question might be made in a Court of Justice how far Paul was obliged to suffer for Onesimus whether any corpora punishment in kind or whether a great sum of money seeing Paul had a good warrant from Gods Law to moderate in this case Deut. 23. 15. Suppose that Philemon had demanded of Paul a thousand pound damage would Philemons imputing this debt of a thousand pound to Paul in the behalf of the wrong done by Onesimus have been accounted a just debt in a Court of Justice who is able to cleer the intricacies of this instance I beleeve this is no cleer instance for a Court of Justice to proceed by in such like cases much lesse is it fit for the present dispute For our dispute is about Gods imputing sin and guilt to man or to the Mediator on mans behalf and not about one mans imputing to another which is but humane and civil If Mr. Norton had given but one Scripture-instance of a divine Imputation in the sense hee pleads for hee had a fair opportunity to have done it when he cited the other two places But seeing hee hath not done it neither there nor any where else I beleeve he is not able to do it and therefore for him to build so great weight upon this of Philemon to prove that Christ was
in Gen. 2. 17. I have denied it in his sense in the former Argument But it had been more true if he had framed his Argument thus Either the Elect suffered the spiritual death in sin threatned on all mankind in Gen. 2. 17. or else God is not true as I have opened the sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But God is true c. His third Argument is this in pag. 11. He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7. 22. Reply I deny the major for I have shewed in Chap. 2. that if it were indeed true that Christ was a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his debt of obedience and to suffer the curse of his disobedience according to the conditions of the first Covenant Then 1. Christ must go to the land of Eden to eat of the tree of Life that so he may truly perform that act of obedience for Adam And 2. He must be dead in sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Iesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priesthood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Aias in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8. which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Iudab and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20 21 22. God snare and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That be would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates is for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his oighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige us to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not oblige us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De
it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfactio for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and the Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a two fold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad gives this exposition of Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell is of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the
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 Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head plot broken Col. 2. 14 15. 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 his obedient death on the Crosse The Apostle doth tell us that we have Remission of sins by vertue of Christs satisfaction namely by his bloody death and sacrifice sacrifice Heb. 9. 15 26 28. Heb. 10. 10. 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell in all the Scripture though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation and therefore it will fall of it self His eight Argument examined which is this If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith hath established the Law Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law Reply 1. If by this conclusion Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law he means no more but this namely that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it then hee proves no more than the Dialogue and all good Christians do grant But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse which doubtlesse is the great thing that he aims at then any ordinary Reader may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand except it be to fill up the number of Eight But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition for though the Text doth expressely say That justifying faith doth establish the Law yet it doth not thence follow That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith this also is another Paradox for many Orthodox Divines do shew how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects Reply 2. I say that Mr. Nortons exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing neer the Apostles meaning What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth yet Dr. Willet whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve doth reject their exposition and that upon this ground because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law by the members of Christ and not by Christ the Head alone And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth Weâ— sairh he make it firm and effectual But Calvin renders the text thus It is established and confirmed And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text refuting the Antinomians Mr. Burges saith It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In 〈…〉 iciae legi 〈…〉 ct 21. p. â—â—9 or strengthning a pillar that is ready to fall Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator namely that to establish is to confirm in opposition to abrogate or disanull And truly seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former it follows that to establish the Law must not be expounded to fulfill the Law as Mr. Norton doth carry it for saith hee Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law But because four of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresie against the Dialogue Therefore I will labour to shew the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it 1 I intreat the Judicious Reader to take notice That the Question betwixt us is not whether faith doth establish the Law or no for the Text it self doth affirm it But the point in difference is In what sense doth faith establish the Law Mr. Norton saith That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments But in that sense I deny it Neither will I tire out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned but pitch upon such as I beleeve are soundeâ—t 1 Take notice that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously shew how the Law is established several wayes and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law he comes nothing neer to Mr. Nortons sense 2 Aretius shews how the Law is established three wayes by saith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius shews that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 5 n. 7. p. 120. c. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice which is in very deed the proper end of the Law and for this sense hee produceth the Testimony of Augustine Anselm and Primasius 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox who In Vindiciae leg is lect 21. ult in p. 120 121. shew how the Law is established by faith But he rejects Mr. Nortons way of establishing as Dr. Willet did and concludes with the judgement of Austine that the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfill the Law and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law 5 Mr. Blake saith thus Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Foederis p. 50. would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ namely that he came to destroy the Law Mat. 5. 17 18. saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it and in other words he proceeds to shew that faith doth establish the Law as
it is the Rule of sanctified walking 6 Saith Mr. Ball The Apostle doth not perpetually and abso Ball on the Coven p. 115. lutely oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace for he teacheth expresly that Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3. 31. for saith he the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith But because the Jews addicted to the letter of the Law did pretermit the force and life of it Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith to be the cause not of life but of death c. 7 Tindal saith Faith onely justifieth maketh righteous and In Tindals works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law for it bringeth the Spirit through Christs deservings The Spirit bringeth lust looseth the heart maketh him free and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love even as the Law requireth then at last out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law his speech sounded as though he would break and disanul the Law through Faith But to that he answereth We destroy not the Law through Faith but maintain furâ—her and stablish the Law that is to say we fulfill the Law through Faith Rom. 3. 31. and this Exposition he gives also in sol 46. and in other places 8 Dr. Barns doth thus dispute with the Popish Bishops Then saith he came your overthwart Fathers and said to Paul thou Dr. Barns printed with Tindals works fol. 238. destroyest the Law and teachest that it justifieth not God forbid saith Paul we teach that the very way to fulfil the Law is Faith and without which all the works of the Law be but sin I could adde more Orthodox writers to this sense but because these that I have cited are no Babes in Divinity therefore I beleeve they will satisfie the judicious Reader of the true sense and that Mr. Nortons Exposition is a forced and erroneous Exposition From all the premises therefore I may well conclude That Mr. Norton hath not nor cannot infer a concluding Argument from Rom. 3. 31. to prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the essentiall punishment of the curse and therefore his ground-work of censuring the Dialogue of Heresie from this text may justly be returned upon his own head And now let the Judicious Reader judge betwixt us CHAP. IX His Answer to the point of Christs satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue Examined The sum of his Answer is drawn up into this Argument in p. 17. and it may be called his ninth Argument Such meritorious Mediatorly obedience aâ— indebteth God in point of justice to remit thâ— just punishment of sin without any violation of justice nay with the establishment of justice must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as includes a suffering of justice But the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ is such a meritorious medatorly obedience whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin 1 Joh. 1. 9. without the violation of Justice Rom. 3. 26. Yea with the establishing of Justice Therefore the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such away of satisfaction unto Justice as includes also a suffering of Justice Reply IF I had met with this Argument in another Book wherein I had not been concerned I should have thought it but a silly Argument for neither the major minor nor Conclusion are without their saults 1 The Conclusion is faulty because it comes not up in terminis to what should be concluded and proved For the point of difference as it is stated by Mr. Norton but five lines before this Syllogism speaks thus You know that we affirm and defend that Christ suffered the wrath of God and that in a way of satisfaction unto divine Justice But in this Conclusion of his Syllogism there is never a word of Christs suffering the wrath of God But bad he made his Conclusion so the Scriptures cited in the minor will not bear up such a Conclusion 2 His major is unsound for God may be indebted by the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ in point of justice The ground of satisfaction to Gods Justice ariseth from the condisions of the voluntary Covenant to remâ—t the just punishment of sin without any violation of Justice nay with the establishing of Justice and yet there is no necâ—ssity it should be done in such a way of satisfaction unto Justice as includes such a suffering of Justice as must be executed upon him from the vindicative wrath of God as he affirms from Gen. 2. 17. And the reason is so plain that he that runs may read it Namely because the ground of satisfaction to Justice ariseth not from the sufferings themselves as they were threatned to the sinner for his disobedience to the first Covenant but from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant wherein all the Trinity were equally Covenanters and all the Articles of that Covenant were positive Laws unto which as a voluntary Mediator he yeelded obedience as I have shewed in chap. 2. The Father propounded his Terms to the second person and the second person covenanted to do what he thought fit to accept and perform and the performance of that was accepted by the Father as fully satisfactory to his justice as payment in kind could have been He that doth voluntarily undertake to perform a combate Obedience performed to the Articles of a voluntary Covenant doth merit the prize with his opposite Champion in order to the voluntary Laws and Covenants that were made for the triall of Masteries if he did strive and overcome his opposite Champion according to those Laws did merit the prize by vortue of that free Covenant and free performance suppose it were for the redemption of Captives that he had deserved death Justice according to Covenant was as fully satisfied by this performance as if the Delinquent or the voluntary Surety in his place had suffered full punishment in kind Again take another instance of a voluntary Covenant a Pepper corn paid by a Tenant to his Landlord according to the conditions of a voluntary Covenant is current pay and satisfaction also though not under the notion of a valuable consideration yet under the notion of a voluntary bargain and Covenant mutually agreed to by both parties These instances shew that the ground of satisfaction to justice may arise as well from the voluntary cause as from the order of natural causes I hope none is so weak as to think that by this last instance I value Christs satisfaction to a pepper corn for his death and sacrifice was of infinite value in it self because it proceeded form his person that was infinite But it was therefore satisfactory because it was â—ade satisfactory by the conditions of a voluntary Covenant and indeed nothing
of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Aâ—ab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21 〈…〉 for it 〈◊〉 it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods imputation and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God that highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Iustice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we consess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditoinal promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
is forgiven doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ it continues the enmity but then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then God is at rest and is pacified and quieted And for this cause all Sacrifices of Attonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah Exod. 22. 18 25 41. Levit. 1. 9. Numb 28. 6 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40 41. But the Septuagint translate it A sweet savour of rest and their phrase the Apostle followeth saying Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a smell of sweet savour Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broyled in the fire materially considered was no sweet smell but formally considered as they were ordained by Gods positive Covenant to procure his Attonement and as they were types of Christs Sacrifice so only are they said to bee of a sweet-smelling savour because they procure his pardon and so they quiet Gods Spirit as sweet smels do quiet and rejoyce our senses therefore Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or means of Attonement but a concurrent part of Attonement These Reasons besides what others may bee added do sufficiently prove That Gods gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice is not an antecedent but a true part if it bee not the whole of Gods Reconciliation And secondly These Reasons do prove That it is Gods righteousness to grant his reconciliation to all beleeving sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice for their formal and eternal righteousness And thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons conjectures that reconciliation is but a consequent of justification is fallen to the ground 8 This Righteousness of God being thus explained It necessarily follows That such as hold Gods Righteousness in being reconciled to sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice to bee the formality of a sinners righteousness must needs deny the imputation of Christs moral righteousness to bee the formal cause of a sinners iustification SECT VI. BUt Mr. Norton in p. 268. Doth damn this formal cause for Heresie and to make good his charge he cites Rom. 5. 19. and Phil. 3. 9. intending thereby to prove that the active righteousnes of Christ to the moral Law is imputed to us for our formal righteousness and justification Reply 2. I have but a little before given the true sense of Rom. 5. 19. in a differing sense from the point that Mr. Norton would prove by it And secondly I will now examine his exposition of Phil. 3. 9. And truly I cannot but wonder that he Phil. 3. 9. should cite it to prove the righteousness of Christ as our Surety to the moral Law seeing there is no righteousness of Christ expressed in this Text but the righteousness expressed is plainly called the righteousness of God namely of God the Father just as I have opened the phrase in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and therefore this righteousness of God in Phil. 3. 9. must have the same sense as I have expounded it to have in 2 Cor. 5. 21. And thus you see that hitherto Mr. Norton proofs of Heresie have failed his expectation and on the contrary they do make directly against him But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. To say that pardon of sin is righteousness it self is to confound the effect with the cause Reply 3. If a meer natural Philosopher had said so it had been the less wonder but that a learned Divine should say so especially after so much light both from German and English Divines that have taken pains to make it evident that Gods gracious pardon is a sinners righteousness is to my apprehensions somewhat strange This righteousness of God saith P. Martyr as I have noted him a little before is far distant from the righteousness that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their sacrifices testifie But saith he this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness Hence I infer that if Mr. Norton will but sâ—bmit his reason to that peculiar way of justification which God hath constituted onely for beleeving sinners by his Covenant with Christ and by his positive Laws then he may soon see that God hath ordained a righteousness for beleeving sinnerâ— by his reconciliation onely and not by the righteousness of the moral Law as the principles of natural Reason is apt to judge for the principles of natural reason cannot think of a righteousnesse for sinners by positive Laws because it resteth in Gods will only to make such Laws effectual for that purpose Secondly This way of making sinners righteous is lively typified and exemplified to us by the Jews legal justifications as I have in part noted a little before and also in page 110 but because it is of concerument I will speak a little more fully to this point It pleased God of his good will and pleasure to covenant with Abraham that his seed should be his peculiar Chruch and people in the land of Canaan and in that respect he was pleased to set up the Tabernacle of his Divine presence among them and set Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein 2 Chron. 23. 19. And when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousness called the gates of Justice saith Ainsworth bâ—cause onely the just and clear might enter therein and so ver 20. and in Jer. 50. 7. The Temple is called the Habitation of Justice because of their ceremonial Justice No unclean person on pain of death might enter therein Levit. 15. 21. and it was once a year cleansed with the blood of the Sin-offering Levit. 16. 16 20. Neither might any dare to have communion with God in feasting on the holy flesh in the holy City in their legal uncleannesse Levit. 7. 20. and 22. 3 9. And to make them and to keep them clean God gave them not onely his Moral Law with prohibitions of all that was contrary thereto but also he gave them divers other positive Laws and Ordinances for their legal justifications from all their ceremonial sins yea and from their moral sins also Levit. 5. 4 6. as to the outward man when they were to come before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or when they were to feast with God on the holy flesh and in case any did presume to come in their legal uncleannesse before they were qualified according to the preparation of the Sanctuary they were threatened to be cut off as some of Ephraim were 2 Chron. 30. 18 19. Exod. 12. 15 19. Levit. 7. 20
as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The â—ree gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justificition with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their un circumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8. though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14. there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritoriouâ— procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text
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 atypical 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 atypical 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 recorded 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 Theephilact 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 Van 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
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 at all against me except it were given thee from above Joh. 19. 11. For God gave Satan leave to do his worst against Christ by all the wicked instruments he thought fit to imploy And Mr. Nortons sense that God delivered up Christ to be tormented by his own immediate wrath is confounded also by Peters exposition in Act. 2. 23 24. The fourth Scripture to bee examined is Act. 2. 23 24. and Act. 4. 27 28. Him being delivered saith Peter by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God Yee the Devils Arch-instruments have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death Hence it is questioned what pains of death they were that God did loose The Answer is Not pains of the second death as some do most unadvisedly expound it But those pains of death Which Yee by wicked hands have made by crucifying and staying his body on the Tree These are the pains of death that were made by the wicked hands of his Crucifiers and these pains of death were they that God loosed and healed at his Resurrection And these wicked hands are thus described in Isa 53. 8 9. Hee was taken away by distress or restraint and by judgement Isa 53. 8 9. and who shall declare his Generation Namely Who shall bee able to declare the extreme wickedness of that Satanical generation by whose wicked hands hee was taken away as a wicked Malefactor and restrained of his wonted liberty and brought as a Malefactor before the judgement-seat of the High-priest and of Pilate and of Herod and again before the judgement-seat of Pilate where hee was sentenced to be crucified First Some I conceive understand this Interrogation of his God-head Who shall declare the Generation of his Godhead Secondly Others understand it of the Generation of his elect number Thirdly But I beleeve it must bee understood of his wicked Satanical Generation for John Baptist did call them A generation of Vipers Mat. 3. And Christ did call them A wicked and adulterous Generation in Mat. 12. 34 39. And so Dr. De Boate doth expound Isa 53. 8. And so Dr. Hammon doth expound Act. 8. 33. And History doth report That at this time the Priests and Scribes were exceedingly addicted to converse familiarly with the Devil And then it follows in verse 8. For be was cut off out of the land of the living which is thus expounded in Act. 8. 33. His life was taken from the earth And just according to this phrase Daniel saith That after sixty two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off that is to say Hee shall bee executed by the Devils Instruments for a wicked Malefactor Den. 9. 26. But not for himself saith Daniel that is to say Not for his own sinful nature nor for his sinful life And to these two Scriptures do the words of Christ allude when hee said to his Disciples at his last Supper The Prince of this world cometh with a band of armed souldiers to apprehend mee for a Malefactor but he hath nothing in me Joh. 14. 30. no original corruption nor no actual transgression against the laws of the Joh. 14. 30. Combate Why then was he taken by wicked hands God doth answer by Isa 53. 8. For the transgression of my people was hee stricken wounded and bruised on the Cross God would have his obedience declared to be perfected by this means before he would accept his death as a sacrifice of Satisfaction and Reconciliation for the transgression of his people and then it follows in verse 9. That he made his grave with the wicked This Mark expounds thus Hee was numbred with the wicked Mar. 15. 28. and with the rich in his death for he was buried in rich Iosephs Sepulchre These Scriptures thus expounded and many such like which might be alleged must have the same sense namely according to Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. which will eminently shew how God is said to do all the afflictions of Christ namely not from his immediate wrath but because according to the voluntary Covenant and Council of the blessed Trinity he proclaimed a combate of enmity between Satan the arch enemy of mankind and the seed of the deceived woman And secondly Because he gave the Devil a commission to do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience 3 God may be said to do all the soul-sufferings of Christ because he appointed him to take on him the seed of the woman and mans true natural affections and passions and so to be inwardly touched with the sence of Satans ignominious and unnatural usage and to manifest it to his Disciples in a high degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution of his nature above ours and his obedience thereto caused his inward agony in the Garden 4 It is further evident that God would have Christs soul to be affected with a deep degree of the dread of his ignominious and unnatural usage by Satan even to an eminent Agony because he appointed him to enter the Lists and to combate 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 dreading an ignominious death with Satan in his true humane nature as it was accompanied with his true natural infirmities of fear c. and not as it was sometimes accompanied with the power of his Godhead For by Gods declared will Christ might not take his utmost advantage against Satan by arming his humane nature with the assistance of twelve Legions of Angel neither might he put forth his omnipotent and absolute power to destroy or annihilate Satan neither might he shut up Satan in his everlasting prison to hinder him from his encounter for if
Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Job 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonah had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but