of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adams means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a
de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is â—n effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de facto are not Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam till it please God to make
a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spiritual and eternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked malefactors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Phi. 2. 9 10 11. Es 5 3 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4. 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood-shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hee gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that
by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses But the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premises 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he
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 inlightned mind 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 conditâ—on only of his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of life 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 eating of the tree of life in case be 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. 119 120. 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 Devil 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 obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant In Vindiciae legis lect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 16â— 178. but that of Grace The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did purposely make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there to eat actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and stead to the
an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal deâ—th it is from Gâ—ds justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in Ro. 5 Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment Gâ—d as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiah teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3 ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar. l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Pigghius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christs suffering of the essential curse Reason I. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statute of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. â— 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Jehovah hath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Testament was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Lev. 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operato to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience ftom their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word â—etter Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfaction for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction
Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a Doctrine but of late The imputation of our sins to Christ as is asserted by Mr. Noâ—ton is a doctrine but of late dayes dayes though now it is grown somewhat common for as it is affirmed by Mr. Wotton it was not known in the dayes of the Ancient Fathers and the Discourse from Grotius formerly cited affirms as much But I will leave the Judicious to inquire further both into the antiquity and verity of it that so the truth may be preserved to succeeding generations 8 The Dialogue doth reason thus If you say that God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing our sins to him Then from the same kind of phrase you must also say that Christ made himself sin by imputing the guilt of all our sins to himself for Isaiah doth tell us that hee set made or put himself to bee Asham a Guilt or a Trespasse for us so the Hebrew Text doth speak in Isa 53. 10. or as the Septuagint translate it He made himself to be sin for us and therefore it follows by the like consequence from this phrase that hee must in like sort in a judicial way inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to our sins and trespasses To this comparative Argument drawn from the likenesse of the phrase Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and judge Christ accepts the charge of a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a Surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge Reply 7. And why doth not Christ execute that vindicative justice upon himself that is the part of a supreme Judge Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilâ—y sinner as much as ever hâ—s Father did as well as his Father seeing hee doth impute our sins to himself by the same phrase cited as much as the Father doth But the judicious Reader may soon see that Mr. Nortons answer is but an evasion to the Dialogues Argument For the Dialogue in the margent saith thus Christ did impute all our sins and trespasses to himself as much as ever the Father did for Isaiah doth tell us That he set or put himself to be Asham a Trespasse or a guilt for us or to be sin for us as the Septuagint render it and hence the Dialogue doth make this comparative Argument If God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing all our sins and trespasses to him as the obligation to his suffering of our curse from Gods vindicative wrath then from the same kind of phrase it doth necessarily follow that Christ made himself to be Asham a Trespasse a guilt or sin by his legal imputing of our sins to himself and so by the same rule of Court-justice hee must likewise in a judicial way inflict the essential torments of Hell upon himself from his vindicative wrath Mr. Norton makes no answer to this Argument but instead thereof hee saith That Christ accepts the charge as a Surety but did not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge but any man may see that by the force of the Argument in the Dialogue that Christ must impute sin to himself and inflict the curse as much as his Father or in case an answer can bee found to excuse Christ from this vindicative act of justice then the same answer will excuse the Father from the said legal imputation of our sins and from his vindicative act of justice also But if this phrase God made him to be sin doth argue that God made Christ a guilty sinner by his imputation then this phrase Christ made himself to be sin will argue that Christ made himself to be a guilty sinner by his own imputation and then hee must execute as a supreme Judge his own vindicative wrath upon himself as well as the Father This absurd consequence saith the Dialogue you cannot avoid And thus saith the Dialogue by this kind of arguing you make Christ to be his own self Accuser and his own self Executioner But the truth is saith the Dialogue Christ did no otherwise make himself to be a Trespasse a guilt or sin but as hee made himself to be a Trespasse-offering and a Sin-offering by which offering once for all he ended Trespasse offerings and finished Sin offerings and thereby made Reconciliation for iniquity or reconciled God to beleeving sinners and so brought in or procured an eternal Righteousnesse instead of the Ceremonial sanctifications or justifications which served to the purifying of the flesh Dan. 9. 29. SECT IV. I Find also that other eminent Divines do agree with Mr. Wotton and with the Ancient Divines afore cited touching the manner how Christ was made sin for us 1 That blessed Martyr Tindal saith That in Exod. 29. and See Tindals Works in p. 4â—9 and Frith in p. 13â— in Lev. 8. and almost every where saith he The Beast offered for sin is called Sin which use of speaking saith hee Paul useth in Rom. 83. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. he calleth Christ Sin when Christ is neither sin nor sinful but an acceptable sacrifice for sin and yet saith he he is called our sin because he bare our sins on his back and because our sins are consumed and made no sins through him If wee forsake our sins and beleeve in Christ for the remission thereof And saith he on Rom. 8. 3. Sin is taken for a Sin-offering after the use of the Hebrew tongue And saith hee in page 160. Christ is no sinner but a satisfaction and an offering for sin And saith hee in page 439. Consider and mark how the Kid or Lamb must bee without spot or blemish and so onely was Christ of all mankind in the sight of God and of his Law Mark this last sentence in the sight of God and of his Law this is point blank against Mr. Nortons Tenent as by the places cited out of him in Chapter 6. may bee soon seen 2 John Frith and Dr. Barns whose works are joyned to Tindal have no other imputation of sin to Christ but his voluntary taking of our punishments according to Mr. Wotton and the Ancient Fathers 3 Frith cites Fulgentius de fide thus In those carnal sacrifices in the time of the Law was a signification of the flesh of Christ which hee without sin should offer for our sins 4 Marbeck in his Common places saith that Austin did well say sed nostra delicta sua delicta fecit ut suam justitiam nostram justitiam faceret that is saith hee by way of Paraphrase he was counted and deemed as a sinner because that in his unjust suffering In his Com. pl. p 1026. hee might justly save sinners that beleeve in him And saith he the most part of the learned Expositors bee of this mind and he doth not paraphrase on
well marked 1 That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 That he was made a curse for us These two clauses the Dialogue hath expressed thus 1 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 When he was made a curse for us Now saith the Dialogue the Apostle cites Deut. 21. 23. only to prove the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death like unto other notorious Malefactors even at the same time when he redeemed us from the curse of the Law by making the formality of his death to bee a sacrifice by his own Priestly power 2 It is further evident that this sense is the truth by the prediction of it from the time of Adams fall in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt pierce him as a sinful Malefactor on the Tree and yet hee shall break thy Head-plot at the very same time by his The outward manner of Christs death on the Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. obedience to the death for in all his conflict with thy ignominious torturing pains on the Cross he shall not suffer his patience to bee disturbed nor his obedience to bee perverted but hee shall continue obedient to the death even the death of the Cross and in that obedience as soon as thou hast done thy worst to disturb it and as soon as hee hath finished all his sufferings hee shall make his death a sacrifice by his own Priestly power And it is reconded of him that as soon as he had but said It is finished he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost and that was the formality both of his death and sufferings And thus hee brake the Devils Head-plot had the victory and won the prize which was the redemption of all the Elect even at the same time when hee was put to death as a cursed Malefactor by the Devil in hanging on a Tree This was the declared platform of the Trinity according to their eternal Covenant for mans Redemption as I have expressed it in the Dialogue but have often in this book amplified and inlarged it 3 It is worth the marking that the Apostle doth not put the Article The to the word Curse cited from Deut. 21. 23. but only to the first word Curse as it is cited in verse 10. from Deut. 27. But in case the latter word Curse had included the moral Curse as well as the former word Curse then in reason it should have had the Article The put to it as wel as it is to the former but because it is not put to the latter therefore this may serve as another Argument to prove the Apostle meant that Christ suffered no other Curse but such a Curse as his proof meant namely a cursed death in the outward manner of it just like unto those Malefactors that were hanged on a Tree according to Deut. 21. 23. and Gen. 3. 15. And to this sense doth Chrysostom and Theophilact expound the Curse that Christ suffered cited in the former Chapter namely that he suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner for he was put to death as a sinner by the Devils imputation but not by Gods imputation if hee had suffered as a sinner from Gods immediate wrath and by Gods imputation then hee must some way or other have had communion with our guilt For saith Grotius afore cited merit is personal and therefore when the Ancient Divines say Hee suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner they mean it only in respect of the likeness of his punishments unto other cursed Malefactors which punishment an innocent person may suffer as well as a Malefactor And so Austin saith well that Christ received our punishment without sin that thereby hee might dissolve our sin and end our punishment And in relation to this sense the Dialogue doth open the Apostles words thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law even at the same time When hee was made not that Curse in verse 10. But a curse for us according to Deut. 21. 23. But saith Mr. Norton the word When is not in the Text but it is of your own putting in Reply 2. It is a usual thing with Mr. Norton to censure the Dialogue with some odious thing or other without any just cause But by his leave the Dialogue is able to justifie it self by the concurrence of good Authors for this word When. 1 Mr. Perkins doth use the word When twice over First In his translation of this Text. And secondly In his Analysis 2 Mr. Ainsworth doth render this Text thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law When hee was made a curse for us in Exod 32. 32. 3 Mr. Calvin in his citation of this Text doth put in the word When just as Mr. Ainsworth hath done in his Inst lib. 2. Chap. 16. Sect 6. 4 The Prophet Isaiah useth the word When just in this very case saying in Isa 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to Isa 53. 10. put him to grief on the Tree When hee shall make his soul a Trespass namely a Trespass or a Sin-sacrifice as the Septuagint render Asham 5 The Syriak doth translate it And or When hee was made a Curse for us Vau in Syriak and Hebrew is usually put for And and yet it is sometimes also put for When and therefore Tremelius doth render it in to Latine Dum pro nobis factus est execratio and Erasmus doth translate the Greek thus Dum pro nobis which doth answer to our English word When or While 6 Tindal doth translate Gal. 3. 13. by And and not by Being 7 The Greek word in Gal. 3. 13. is often put for When by our Translators as in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak Vau into Latine Dum and into English When he was in Bethany and When he was in an Agony and therefore by the like reason it may as well bee translated When hee was made a Curse for us 8 It seems to mee therefore that Mr. Norton doth find fault with the Dialogue from no other cause but because the word When doth utterly spoyl the visage of the Argument for it is no way suitable to his typical sense on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend and therefore it is no marvel that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chastisement in Isa 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him namely When he was wounded for our transgressions and when hee was bruised for our iniquities But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross then the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it for we cannot find in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God and
of his exceeding sorrows before his Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and â—xemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Agony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his death which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that fervent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And faith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in that which hee feared Observe I pray That Dr. Hall doth speak this of Christs natural fear of his bodily death And secondly This also is worthy of due observation that Christ must overcome his natural fear of death before hee could make his vital soul a sacrifice according to Gods command for it was Gods command and his own Covenant also that he should not suffer any to take away his vital soul from him But secondly to lay it down of himself namely as a sacrifice by his own will desire and power but this his humane nature could not do until hee had overcome his natural fear and he had no better way to overcome his natural fear than by his fervent wrastling prayers as it is expressed in Luke 22. 44. and Heb. 5. 7. Hee might not in this case use the power of his Godhead to make his nature impassible because hee had covenanted to enter the Lists with his Combater Satan in the infirmities of our humane nature and he had no better way to get a confirmation like Armor of proof to his humane nature against this fear of his unnatural
Page 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 90 137 181 420 428 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 Ch. Vers Page 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John Ch. Vers Page 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. Ch. Vers Page 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition is 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 alledged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annexed 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 iâ— Do this and then sealt live Lev. 18. 5. But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Justice 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 then 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 about 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 Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality and so when Neshamah 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 In 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 Faedcris 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 perfections 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 his 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 life 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 Sixthly It is not necessary saith Mr. Burges to make it a In vindiciae leges p. 118. question whether the breach of the moral Law would have 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 was 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 â—0 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 con-natural 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 or prohibition to restrain mans corrupt nature But because Adam was created after Gods 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 See Trap on Mat 5 p. 132. Dr. Ames in Medul c. 15. Sect. 12. vindiciae legis p. 62. 148. 213. are partly of a moral Constitution and partly of a positive 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
end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence iâ— follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby the might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesuâ— Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Whitgenstenius at the end of Vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often cite it as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted Lev. 18. 5. See Bâ—ll on the Covenant p. 136. as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Law in every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Rom. 2. 13. Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It 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
Answer in pag. 120. is this It is evident that as Christ suffered the torments of hell in kind in his Soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of Hell though not inflicted after the same manner Reply 1. Any man may see that in this Answer he doth plainly contradict and confute his first principal Proposition and also his Assertion in his first Distinction for in this and in other places also he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential punishment of the curse and in pag. 123. he saith That Christ both in Soul and Body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time but in his Answer he dares not venture to say that he suffered the torments of hell in his body in kind as he did in his soul But instead of making a clear Answer to my Quere he propounds another Quere Who can deny saith he but that he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell His first ground-work was that Christ suffered in a way of exact justice the essential punishment of the curse of the Law and now he flies to the word Equivalent all that know any thing of the strict justice of the Law do know that it will not alter one jot from the punishment threatned in kind to that which is equivalent if Mr. Norton being now put to a pinch to answer this Quere will allow of so much alteration from the letter of the Law to equivalency then he doth also affirm that the Law was relaxed to make a new Covenant for equivolency and yet in pag. 146. and in pag. 174 he denies acceptilation and thus he crosseth himself up and down and stands not fast to his first ground-work 2 He crosseth his first ground-work in page 121. It is sufficient saith he to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul Reply 2. He that hath but half an eye may see that in this Answer he doth fully overthrow his first fundamental Proposition and his first Distinction for in those places he hath affirmed that Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell in kind but now he saith it is sufficient to integrate and make up the full execution of the full measure of wrath that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul first hee confesseth that Christ did not suffer the full essential Curse in his body and then by some Revelation he knows that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul beleeve him that lift and yet he crosseth this also in page 123 for there hee saith That Christ both in soul and body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time And thus he makes the eternal Curse in Gen. 2. 17. one while to be executed in kind only and another while to be arbitrary and to bee suffered either in kind or else in that which is equivalent hee allows a lesse punishment to his body and so much more to his soul doubtless he must know this by some private Revelation for he cannot find any Scripture that is rightly interpreted that will own it But yet Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it thus The measure of Hell-pains saith he is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell Reply 3. What a deceitful kind of reasoning is this for all men know that the fallen Angels have no bodies and therefore they must needs suffer the full measure of Hell-torments without bodily Torments And in page 122. he saith according to his fundamental Proposition That Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Reply 4. But Mr. Norton doth plainly crosse this Assertion also for hee said formerly that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul here he acknowledgeth that Christ had some forgivenesse in respect of his bodily Torments And in page 122. Hee saith That Christ had not so much as the least drop of water to ease him in the least particle of his suffering that was due to him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time Reply 5. This he doth also plainly crosse for in page 68. hee doth acknowledge that Christ had a taste of consolation in the time of his Agony in the Garden so that hee doth sometimes give Christ a taste of consolation under his Essential Torments and sometimes not a drop of consolation either he must confesse that Christ was not yet under the essential punishment of the Curse in the Garden or else he must confesse that his Position in page 122. is not true But he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse in the Garden in page 70. in these words Hee had clods rather then drops streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was heard nor seen before nor since And saith he The true reason thereof is Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death And in page 121. Christ suffered the Torments of Hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral Curse Gal. 3. 13. and in the Garden Hence it follows that by these two last places he doth justifie his former Position in page 122. but still that is contradictory which I cited in page 68. And thus Mr. Norton doth confute and contradict himself and being uncertain in his principles he leaves the truth of Christs satisfaction uncertain to a scrutinous conscience Mr. Samuel Heiron saith in page 244. That the extremity of Hell-torments is made known to us two wayes 1 By the universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun 1 Mr. Norton doth crossâ— both these Positions For first hee allows some ease to the body of Christ though he saith It was made up in his soul And secondly Hee had also some drop of consolation to his soul in the Garden 2 Hee also grants an intermission after Hell-torments were begun upon Christ for in page 68. Christ saith he had his interims of respite and in the Garden an interval of consolation otherwise saith hee Hee could not have fulfilled that which is written of him But if this reason bee found and good why hee had an interval of consolation in the Garden then by the same reason he must have an interval of consolation on the Crosse for when he was in his greatest Torments on the Crosse and ready to give up his soul then he remembred that something must be fulfilled that was written of him for so doth John tell us Joh. 19. 28 Jesus knowing that all things were
now accomplished and that the Scriptâ—re might be fulfilled said I thirst Wherefore did he say I Joh. 19. 28. thirst the answer is because he remembred that that Scripture in Ps 69. 21. must be fulfilled and therfore he said I thirst When Jesus therfore had received the vinegar for the fulfilling of that Prophesie he said It is finished and hee bowed his head and gave up the ghost Joh. 19. 30. Therefore no extremity of Torments did confound his memory and will from fulfilling of what ever was written but though Mr. Norton doth allow some interims of respite to Christ in the Garden yet other whiles he saith That Christ whiles he was in the Garden began not meerly to be amazed but also to bee very heavy The word saith he notes Expavefaction which was such a motion of his mind superadded to his consternation whereby for the time hee was dis-inabled as concerning the minding of any thing else being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God he must have a better head then I that can reconcile his former speech and this latter speech together before he said that Christ had his interims Mr. Norton imputes the sin of unmindfulnesse to Christ in time of executing his office of respite in the Garden and an interval of consolation or else he could not have minded the fulfilling of that which was written of him but now he saith that in the Garden he was in such a motion in his mind whereby for the time he was disinabled as concerning the minding of any thing else It is strange that hee should not be able to mind any thing else and yet in his greatest torments on the Crosse wee see he was able to mind that one Scripture to be fulfilled therefore hee said I thirst Therefore I conclude that this interpretation of Christs fear and heavinesse in the Garden by amazement and by such a motion of his mind as dis-inabled him from the minding of any thing else but the sense of the dreadful wrath of God is a most dangerous imputation of sin to Christ in the time of the execution of his Priestly Office as I have noted it in Mar. 14 33. in Chap. 17. Sect. 4. And though Dr. Williams doth hold that Christ suffered both the pain of Losse and the pain of Sence in page 437. yet in page 447. hee saith In his seven gâ—lden Candlesticks p. 437. 447. That all the Divine comforts were not detained from him on the Crosse when he said My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons judgement cannot be found because he doth so often contradict himself and that Scripture of Joh. 19. 28. Reason 2 My second Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Torments of Hell If Christ made satisfaction by suffering the Essential punishment Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as they have life in the womb of the Curse in our stead Then it doth necessarily follow that all the Elect are actually justified as soon as ever they have life in the womb and therefore before they can have any actual faith This opinion of Mr. Nortons doth strongly support the Antinomian Tenent But saith Mr. Woodbridge It is evident by Scripture That none In his Sermon of justification by faith p. 22. are actually justified till they have faith and the ground of this is saith he because the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but the equivalent being not the payment of the Debtor but of the Surety and therefore it doth not deliver ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him when he undertook to be our Surety If a Debtor saith he bring me what he ows me it dischargeth him presently But the payment of a Surety is a payment that is refusable in it self and therfore it effects not the discharge of the principal Debtor but at the time and according to the conditions between the Surety and the Creditor and that time agreed on was not till those that live to yeâ—rs of discretion have actual faith Reason 3 My third Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Punishment of the Curse If Christ made satisfaction by paying our proper Debt in kind Payment in kind leaves no room for the exercising of Gods free pardon then there is no place left for pardon But it is evident that God doth daily pardon beleeving sinners of his meer grace and mercy yea according to the greatnesse of his mercy as the Dialogue shews page 31. 154 156 c. And the ground of this is because the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem 1 If in and with Christ saith Mr. Wotton we have formerly satisfied the justice of God then there is no place left for pardon De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 21. Sect 8. for the same man for the same offence cannot bee both punished and pardoned by God because pardon and punishment are directly contrary 2 Saith Mr. Baxter If the proper Debt either of obedience or suffering be paid either by our selves or by any other then there is no place left for pardon for when the Debt is paid wee owe nothing except obedience de novâ— and therefore can have nothing forgiven us for the Creditor cannot refuse the proper debt nor deny an acquittance upon the receit thereof In his Apho of Just p. 169. But Christ having paid the Tarâ—â—dem and not the idem the value and not the strict debt This satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs suffering which yet because hee did freely accept therefore his gracious act is properly called Pardon 3 Saith Mr. Baxter in page 143. By reason of the obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the obligation but only ours and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed And whereas the satisfaction of Christ is called a gracious acceptation a gracious imputation c. How can any man saith Baxter call it thus If it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ payed to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation needeth no favour to procure acceptance 4 The chief Argument of Grotius and Vossius saith Mr. Baxter in Appendix 39. is drawn from the Tenure of the obligation and from the event The obligation chargeth punishment upon the offender himself only In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye Now if the same in the obligation is paid then the Law is executed and not relaxed and then every sinner must dye himself for that is the idem and the very thing threatned so that here Dum alius solvit simul aliud solvitur The Law threatned not Christ but us Besides Christ
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 used 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 eatest 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 Surety to the fiâ—st Covenaâ—t none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature in general was in the first Covenant See also Reply 6. Gen. 2. 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 found 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 Philemon 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 corporal 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 our guilty Surety on whom God did justly inflict the Essential Torments of Hell is to run himself and his Reader into a lâ—byrinth of confused error That Preacher therefore saith Tindal page 170. that bringeth a naked similitude to prove that which is contained in no text of Scripture nor followed of a Text count a Deceiver a Leader out of the way and a false Prophet and beware of his Philosophy and perswasions of mans wisdome as Paul 1 Cor. 2. saith c. for the reasons and similitudes of mans wisdome make no faith but wavering and uncertain opinions only one instance of a divine imputation of sin to an innocent had confirmed the point but a hundred such instances of Philemons imputing of Onesimus debt to Paul is nothing to the point If saith Mr. Wotton we take sin formally then I deny that our sins were so imputed to Christ His words at large I have recorded in my examination of 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3 As for that Imputation by way of grace used ten times in Rom. the fourth I cannot but wonder at the citing of this Text to explicate
righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 12. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and a little after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator because â—of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of our guilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father
which we call Soul saith Ainsworth in Ps 16. 10. hath the name of Breathing and Respiring and saith he it is the vital spirit that all quick things move by therefore beasts birds fish and creeping things are called Living souls Gen. 1. 20. 24. and this soul is sometimes called The blood Gen. 9. 4. because it is in the blood of all quick things Lev. 17. 11. 2 Christopher Carlisle proves on the Article of Descent page 144. 153. that Nephesh is never used for the immortal soul in all the Old Testament and saith Dr. Hammond in 1 Thes 5. 23. Psuche the soul doth ordinarily in the New Testament signifie The life and saith Carlisle in p. 155. Psuchee doth signifie the immortal soul but in three places namely in Mat. 10. 27 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. and saith he in the New Testament it signifies for the most part that which Nephes doth in the Old And secondly he makes it to signifie the fear of death in Christs humane nature in Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. But thirdly Though Neshemah doth also signifie the vital soul yet t is never used for the vital soul of the unreasonable creatures as Nephesh is but only of man and therefore the Hebrews do often understand by it the immortal or the rational soul See Aben Ezra upon Eccles 3. 21. 7. 5. And saith Carlisle in p. 162. Neshemah hath its name of Shamaim Heaven for that the immortal soul cometh from Heaven These things considered I think Mr. Norton hath but little ground to perswade his Reader from his learned Authors that the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. is to be understood properly of the immortal Soul of Christ CHAP. VIII The Examination of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments His first Argument is this in Page 10. Either Christ suffered the Justice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the Execution thereof without the violation of his Justice But God could not dispence with the Execution thereof without the violalation of his Justice Reply 1. BOth Propositions are unsound 1 The major because hee presupposeth from Gen. 2. 17. That Christ was included in the first Covenant as Adams Surety in the same Obligation with him This hath been denied and answered several times and indeed the plain letter of the text doth directly out-face it both in Gen. 2 17. and in Deut. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18 4. c. All these Gen. 2. 17. places do directly threaten the sinner himself only Yea some Divines that hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering Gods vindicative wrath yet in this they do oppose Mr. Norton In the rigor of the Law saith Mr. Ball the Delinquent himself See Ball on the Covenant p. 290. is in person to suffer the penalty denounced Every man shall bear his own burthen Gal. 6. 5. And in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death Gen. 2. 17. so that the Law in the rigor thereof doth not saith hee admit of any commutation or substitution of one for another and so hee concludes that satisfaction was made by another free Covenant 2 The minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the excution of the Essential Curse without the violation of his Justice But in this Tenent Mr. Norton 1 King 21. â— M. Norton leaves the point of satisfaction in an uncertaintie because he doth one while say that Christ suffered the essential curse onely that another while that onely which was equivalent doth sufficiently confute himself for he doth often say that Christ suffered pains equivalent to the pains of Hell If they were but equivalent then they were not the same and then God did dispence with the Essential pains in kind which is contrary to his minor and contrary to his first Distinction Ahab offered unto Naboth that which was equivalent to the full worth of his Vineyard but yet Ahab could not accept it for satisfaction because God had determined in Lev. 25. 23. That the Land should not be fold for ever and therefore Naboth could not account any equivalent thing to be satisfaction but his Vineyard in kind onely 1 King 21. 3. So changeable are Mr. Nortons Principles that they can have but little truth in them Reply 2. But Mr. Norton doth labor to confirm his minor by Matth. 5. 18. Till Heaven and Earth pass one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled This Scripture Mr. Norton doth cite several times 1. To prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse for us as in p. 10. 104. 213. 2 He doth also often cite it to prove that Christ as God-Man Mediator fulfilled the Law in a way of works for us as in p. 152 192 197 240 267. Therefore seeing he doth lay such great weight upon this Text I think it needful to examine the true sense of this Text and then it will appear that Mr. Norton doth pervert the true sense of it to his corrupt ends This Text of Mat. 5. 17 18. doth speak of Christs fulfilling Mat. 5. 17 18. the Law but not in respect of his own personal conformity to it as Mr. Norton would have it to speak but it speaks of his fulfilling it by filling up the spiritual sense of it which was suppressed by the Scribes and Pharisees he fulfilled that is to say he filled up the true Interpretation of it in its latitude for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward in the way of sanctified obedience In this sense Matthew saith That Christ came to fulfill the Law and in this sense it did belong to his Mediators Office as he was the Prophet of his Church to rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for destroying the spiritual sense of the Law by their litteral and corrupt Interpretations But saith Christ I came to fulfill it by giving the spiritual sense and meaning of it for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward as ver 21 27 33 38 43. do plainly shew And then he concludes with an exhortation in ver 48. Be ye therefore perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect namely be perfect in Exposition and Doctrine for it is the perfect rule of an upright life and conversation Mr. Joseph Mead on Mat. 5. 17. saith thus Think not that I In his Diatribae or discourses on several Scriptures am come to take away the obligation of the Rule of mans duty to God and to his Neighbor given first by Moses in the Law and afterward repeated and inculcated by the Prophets but to fulfill them that is to supply or perfect those Rules and Doctrines of just and unjust contained in them by a more ample inetrpretation and other improvement befitting the state of the Gospel For surely saith he this must be the meaning of this speech of
by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and he Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a twofold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Aâ—imad gives this exposition of Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell us of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3. 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the Seed of the Woman at the self-same time should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials and then having finished all that was written of him he should set his soul a Trespass-offering which he did when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that time he bowed his head and gave up the ghost by his own Priestly Power and not by Sathans power And without this combate with Sathan and without this shedding of blood there is no Satisfaction and so no Remission But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be and was without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God Though not without Gods appointment and permission to Sathan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman to spoil his obedience if he could in which conflict Christ had his Col. 2. 14 15. Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head-plot broken Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience or turning away back till he had spoyled the Head-plot of Principalities and Powers by
Annotations he saith thus The word Just in Greek is answerable to the Hebrew and signifies ordinarily works of Mercy and Charity of which when Maymonides sets down seven sorts or degrees the seventh is distinctly Righteousness or Justice and so Justice in Deut. 24. 13. both according to the context and the 70 is Mercy So when Rabbins say There are two Thrones the one of Judgement and the other of Mercy the latter is so stiled by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 4. 16. and so Psal 112. 9. he hath given to the poor and his righteousness i. e. his bounty to the poor So Isa 58. 7 8. and Mat. 6. 1. where the vulgar reading is justitiam and that for almes in that place Proportionable to these acceptions of the word saith he the righteousness of Joseph shall here signifie not strict legal Justice but peculiarly Goodness and Clemency in not bringing Mary to the capital punishment of stoning for her being with child according to the Law in Deut. 22. but he thought to put her away privately and so to keep the betrothing private that so she might suffer no more but infamy for Fornication In this point of clemency is Josephs justice commendable But on Rom. 3. 26. he saith thus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just signifieth one that is merciful or charitable as hath been shewed on Mat. 1. 19. and accordingly it may be observed that the word seldom in these books of the New Testament if ever belongs or is applied to the act of vindicative Justice But as there in the case of Joseph who would not offer his wife to legal punishment and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous for the abating of the rigor of exact Law and bringing in moderation or equity or mercy instead of it Accordingly saith he it is here to be resolved That this phrase being used of God That God may be just or righteous it must be understood to denote his mercy and goodness and clemency in pardoning and forgiving sins that being the thing looked on in the many foregoing expressions as our being justified freely by his grace in ver 24. The propitiatory ver 25. Gods righteousness i. e. his mercifull dealing with men under the second Covenant Verse 25 26. the remission of sins and forbearance Verse 25. And saith he the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just or righteous being so commonly taken in the notion of mercifulness and so seldom in this of vindicative Justice there is no reason to interpret it thus in this place Though this of Dr. Hamon do not fully accord to my former interpretation of Gods righteousness yet his reasons are very solid to shew that Gods Justice here is not to be taken as Mr. Norton doth for vindicative Justice Fourthly It is observable that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just is often put for one that is pious and merciful So the 70 put one that is pious for Tzedec justice in Isa 24. 16. and so also the Hebrew word Chesed mercy is put for one that is pious and just and therefore the Seventy do often render it Justice as in Gen. 19. 19. Gen. 20. 13. 21. 23. 24. 27. and in 49 see Ains 32. 10. Exod. 15. 13. 34. 7. Prov. 20. 28. Isa 63. 7. And the reason is plain because Justice moderated is Mercy And to this purpose also do our larger Annotations speak on Psal 22. 31. And saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 21. The demonstration of Gods revenging Justice springeth not from the necessity of his nature but from his voluntary disposition By these particulars I beleeve it will be evident to the Judicious that none of all the three Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his Assumption do prove it namely that Christ did satisfie Gods Justice by suffering his vindicative Justice And therefore the point of satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue is sound and good still notwithstanding all that Mr. Norton hath said or can say against it SECT 2. Mr. Nortons Answer to the several Scriptures cited by the Dialogue to prove the question stated Examined THe Dialogue saith thus in p. 2. Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole or in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things in all circumstances just according to the Predictions of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting in the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews That they had killed the Prince of life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fulfilled it So Act. 3. 17 18. Mr. Norton doth Answer thus This may include saith he but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Reply 1. He should have shewed that this Scripture did certainly include that Christ did suffer from Gods wrath especially seeing it i◠cited for a proof of the Question stated but I have often shewed that God hath shewed from all his Prophets from Gen. 3. 15. that God appointed Satan to set all his Instruments on work to persecute Christ and to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious and painful death as a Malefactor on the Cross to try if he could pervert him in the course of his obedience and so to hinder Christs death from being a perfect sacrifice by which means onely the Devils head-plot must be broken The second Scripture cited in the Dialogue is in Mat. 16. 21. Christ told his Disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mr. Norton Answers thus True Yet saith he Matthew doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God Reply 2. If Matthew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That hee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers These words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24. 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13.
27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this Text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. 1 Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may
other but from the power which himself had in promising Consequent whereunto is this according to the opinion which wee beleeve to be the Truer That no man can by his becoming surety lose his * Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes Vide Panâ—rmitan Rubri de fide jussoribus nor for judicial corporal pains vide digest l. 2. tit iâ— Si quis cautionibus lege quotiens And saith Mamony The Judges are warned that they take no ransom of the Murderer though he could give all the wealth in the world and though the avenger of blood should be willing to free him for the soul of him that is killed is not the possession of the avener of blood but the possession of the holy blessed God See Ains in Num. 35. 31. Ex. 21. 25. Lev. 24. 19. Ps 49. 8. None have a true legal power over their own life but God and the Magistrate to whom God gives power over Delinquents life because we determine no man hath such right over his own life that hee can take it from himself or ingage it to bee taken away by another though the Ancient Romans and Greeks were of another minde in this matter But it seems the latter Romans saw the inconvenience of their Ancestors Customes and therefore they made other Laws in opposition thereto Vide Codic lib. 9. Tit. 47. de poenis lege Sancimus And saith Grotius in the next page what wee have said of life ought to bee understood of members too for a man hath not right over them but for the preservation of the body But saith he If exile or losse of mony were in the promise and by the others fault the forfeiture was made the Surety shall bear the losse which yet in him to speak exactly will not be a punishment c. Ibidem And saith he because Beasts are not properly guilty of a fault when a beast is put to death as in the Law of Moses for copulation with man Lev. 20. 15. that is not truly punishment but the use of mans dominion over the beast Then hee proceeds to shew in Chap. 113. that none is justly punished in propriety of speech for anothers fault None saith he that is free from the fault can bee punished for the fault of another because the obligation to punishment ariseth from merit and merit is personal having its original from the will than which nothing is more ours whence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in Chap. 78. hee doth distinguish upon the word punishment properly so called and improperly so called punishment in general saith he is the evil of passion which is inflicted for the evil of action To be kept from Assemblies or functions are not properly punishments although for a certain similitude and abusively they are so called Hierax defined Justice to bee an exacting of punishment from offenders And saith he punishment properly so named must be rendred to some * Vide Codic l. 9. T it 74 de poenis lege Sancimus There the Emperors Arcadius and Honerius say thus We appoint that punishment shall be there where the fault iâ— let offences bind their committers and let no fear of punishment extend further than to such as are guilty of crime And â—o this purpose speaks P. Martyr in Jud. 2. Eze 18. 20. offence This is also noted by Austin All punishment saith he if it bee just is the punishment of sin and in Chap. 113. Grotius cites Austin thus God himself should be unjust if he should condemn any one guiltlesse Job 34. 23. Ibidem God indeed threatens to punish the iniquities of the Fathers upon the children But saith hee hee hath a most full right of Dominion as over our goods so over our lives too being his gift which without any cause and at any time he can take away from any one at his pleasure But saith he men may not imitate that vengeance of God The reason is not alike because wee have said God without regard of the fault hath right over the life men have not but upon some great crime and such as is the persons own Wherefore that same Divine Law as it forbids Parents to be put to death for their children so it forbids children to be put to death for the deeds of their Parents which Law pious Kings have followed even in the case of Treason Deut. 24. 16. 2 King 14. 6. And saith he at ult An heir that is liable to others debts is not liable to the punishment of the deceased for though the heir doth bear the person of the deceased in respect of goods which are ingaged yet not in respect of merits which are properly personal From these speeches of Grotius it follows 1 That hee did beleeve it to be the truer opinion That no man can by his becoming Surety lose his life because no man hath right over his own life and therefore those humane examples of taking away the life of Sureties for the faults of others though they passe for good justice in Mr. Nortons opinion yet not in Grotius opinion being rectified nor in the Scriptures and therefore Mr. Norton hath laboured in vain to make Grotius his abettor in this 2 Hence it follows that seeing Grotius held this as a principle that the obligation to punishment doth arise from merit and that merit is personal having its original from the will that hee could not hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was made legally guilty of our sins by Gods imputation 3 Hence it follows That the punishments that Christ suffered were not in true propriety of speaking legal punishments because true legal punishments must bee inflicted for personal faults and therefore hee could not hold that Christ suffered any punishments from Gods vindicative wrath 4 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered are so called by a certain similitude but not properly the wounds received in the trial of Masteries from the opposite Champion are improperly called punishments no sufferings are properly punishments but such as are legally inflicted for Delinquency 5 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered were not inflicted on him from Gods legal and vindicative wrath but hee suffered them from his voluntary combate with Sathan and his Instruments as I have at large shewed in Chap. 16. and in divers other places 6 Hence it is evident That Christ could not in true propriety of speech bee our legal Surety in Grotius judgement joyntly bound with us to fulfill the Law and suffer the Curse and so to pay our full debt in kind as Mr. Norton holds 7 I grant notwithstanding that Christ may improperly be called our Surety because hee did of his own accord undertake the combate with Sathan and his Instruments for our redemption and by his constant patience and obedience to the death he overcame them all and at last in the perfection of his obedience he made his soul a sacrifice by which he obtained the prize
both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture Reply 9. It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would perswade his Reader it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption First I doe not finde that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments or the second death It is objected saith Peter Martyr that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9. 1. 2. in p. 240. did not onely give his life upon the cross but also that he was made a curse and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And after a short Answer to another Objection he Answers thus The second doubt saith he is concerning Christ for although he for our sakes suffered death yet was he not in very deed separated from God but his humanity was holpen when he suffered on the cross all extream pains he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake and he was counted as a blasphemer c and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree he was made a curse saith he as touching the punishment of the Law in Deut. 21. 23. and saith he he was counted as a Blasphemer and an ungodly person and being as iâ— were convicted of these crimes he was condemned but yet was he not by eternal damnation namely by suffering that which to the creature is eternal damnation separated from God By this answer it is evident That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree just as Chrisostom and Theophilact spake as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said ere while that his exposition was generally received but here he may see two of the antient Divines and Peter Martyr cited against him and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth Fourthly Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other penal hel or infernum but his bodily death as I have cited him in Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly I have also diligently perused all Tindals works and the works of Jo. Frith and of Dr. Barns being three godly Martyrs and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction and by occasion thereof they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons sense of Hell torments but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice Sixthly I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. Nortons Tenent of Hell Torments But I have not throughly searched them but in a great part I have and can find no such thing in them Let them that please search them fully Seventhly Mr. Broughton and his followers which to this day are many that are both pious and learned and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross as no Article of their faith I will cite onely two passages out of Mr. Broughton besides what I have cited in the Dialogue 1 Saith he That assertion that our Lord suffered Hell Torments In his positions on Hades p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture true modesty saith he would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption 2 Saith he to say that our Lords soul tasted the second death is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22 25. saith he in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalips is taken from the Thalmudistes and therefore by them it must be expounded And in their sense saith he it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God and agreeable to this I have shewed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa 22. and Rabbins infinitely But saith Mr. Norton to avoid manifest blasphemy Christ was never in Gods hatred Therefore he might as well conclude that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell nor the second Death seeing they are not inflicted without Gods hatred And saith Bro. in Revel p. 301. N. N. missed most Atheanly more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam to say that our Lord was in the second Death 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith the Chalde doth thus expound it Let Ruben not die the second death And saith he Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus Let Ruben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall dye in the world to come And saith he in Psal 49. 11. The Chalde saith That wicked wise men die the second death and are adjudged to Gehenna And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat of Repentance c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith And this is the cutting off written in the Law as it is said in Numb 15. 31. That soul shall be cut off he shall be cut off which we have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just â—s the Dialogue doth as I have
tremble to say so and yet Mr. Norton approves of Luther for saying so in page 92 93. who durst alledge this place saith Luther Accursed is every one that hangs on a Tree and apply it to Christ Like as Paul then applied this sentence to Christ even so may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27. Chapter of Deuteronomy but also may gather up all the Curses of Moses Law together and expound the same of Christ for as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his person so is he also in all the rest and as he is guilty in this general Law in that he is made a curse for us and hanged upon the Cross as a wicked man a blasphemer a murderer and a traitor even so is he guilty also in all others for all the Curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him Hence it follows from Luthers words approved by Mr. Norton that the said Curses mentioned by Dr. Preston were laid upon Christ or else Mr. Norton must not approve of this speech of Luther Mr. Rutherfurd propounds this Question How could Christ In Christs dying p. 560 561. be a Curse There is saith he a thing intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed and there is a thing extrinsecally and effectively cursed Now saith he none but he that sinneth is intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed for in this regard it is a personal evil Christ was not intrinsecally abominable and execrable to God c. This distinction of extrinsecally and effectively cursed was contrived only for the sake of Christ or else doubtless hee would have given some other instance of his assertion I grant That Mr. Rutherfurd did hold that Christ did suffer the moral Curse as Mr. Norton doth But yet he held it arbytrary to the Lawgiver to execute the curse on Christ rather in the equivalency than in the proper kind of it and therefore he saith That some punishments may well bee changed the one for the other as Gods hating and abominating the sinner was changed into Gods forsaking of Christ when he complained My God my God c. And secondly saith he Christ was not intrinsecally cursed as the sinner who sinneth in person is and then he concludes that the kind of punishment which Christ suffered was arbytrary to the Lawgiver But Mr. Norton denies it to be arbytrary for saith he in page 10. The Omnipotent had so limited himself by his Law Mr. Norton holds satisfaction by Christs suffering the essential curse in kind and yet he holds alteration to equivalency in Gen. 2. 17. that he could not alter and saith hee in page 146. 143. though in many typical redemptions God accepted a price and spared life yet not so in the Antitype No price saith he can dispence in the case of the Antitype And saith he in page 122. Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God spared him nothing of the due debt he had not the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering that was due according to justice And saith he in page 23. he suffered the whole essential properly penal death of the Curse that is the whole essential punishment thereof was executed upon Christ By these fundamental Propositions he must reject any alteration to the way of equivalency and yet he is sometimes forced to flye to equivalency as I have noted it in Chap. 4. I confess I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth keep no more exactly to his principles of payment in kind but that he is forced to flye sometimes to equivalency The rest that follows in Mr. Norton on Gal. 3. 13. is but the same in true substance that hath already been examined and confounded And that which follows about the Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ I have examined at the end of my Examination of Psal 22. 1. and Mat. 27. 46. CHAP. XVI SECT 1. Mr. Norton propounds this Question in p. 56. How do you prove this sorrow and complaint of Christ to have proceeded from the fear of a bodily death Reply 1. THe Dialogue doth prove it by two Reasons First Saith the Dialogue do but consider what a horrid thing to true humane nature the death of the body is and then consider that Christ had a true humane nature like to all other men except in the point of sin and therefore why should not he be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could bear without sin Mr. Norton doth Answer thus Because regular affections such as Christs were moved according to the nature of the object so much therefore as bodily death is a less evill than eternal death so much the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithall is less than that trouble which it is capable of suffering in case of conflicting with eternal death Reply 2. He saith That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that the regular trouble of his humane nature was in relation to that death They may beleeve his bare word that please and he knows that the Dialogue doth all along deny it and I have also taken away his proof in other places therefore the reason of the Dialogue doth stand good and firm still The second Reason of the Dialogue is this Do but consider that all mankind ought to desire and endeavor to preserve their natural lives as much as in them lies in the use of means in obedience to the sixt command and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man could not prevent his death by the use of means he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Mr. Norton in p. 57. doth answer thus It is more than manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning meer natural death Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not subject to death as ours is In his War Peace ch 36. and I have cited Mr. Ball to this sense in ch 17. at Reply 25. Christ both in his combate with Satan also in the formality of his death by his Priestly order did all by way of Covenant and not by condition of nature Reply 3. It is more then manifest that he was to be troubled with the fear of a bodily death more than any other man because the constitution of his nature and natural spirits was more pure than the nature of other men and therefore he must manifestly abhor it more than other men for he was not made subject to death by nature as all other men are all other men by reason of original sin are born the bondslaves of Satan Death is their Birth-right and therefore they abhorre it not in a regular manner but with a dull slavish spirit but because Christs nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin therefore he was not born the bondslave of death Death hath no right saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121.
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 slaying 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. Isa 53. 8 9. Hee was taken away by distress or restraint and by judgement 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 God-head 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 he 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 Dan. 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 Joh. 14. 30. corruption nor no actual transgression against the laws of the 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 Josephs 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 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 because he appointed him to enter the Lists and to combate 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 God-head 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 Christ had put forth such a power as this against Satan the odds had been too great and such odds given to Christ could not stand with the wisdom of the supream Covenanters and therefore in Gen. 3. 15. God appointed Christ to take on him the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan by the well managing and ordering of which nature better than our first parents had done in their innocency he should prevaile against the stratagems of the old Serpent that had the power of death over our first parents and doubtless the Devil made full account to get the like power over the humane nature of Christ as he had done over Adams pure nature and to that end he did not cease to imploy his Instruments to tempt him and often times hee heaped upon him many grievous accusations and sinful imputations and at last he proceeded so far as to apprehend him condemn him and crucifie him as a sinful malefactor But still the deceiver was deceived for indeed Christ was such a wise servant and such a faithful Priest that he circumvented Satan