2. Gen. 3 22. and as I have also expounded in my Book of the Institution of the In his descent into Hell p. 163. 172. Sabbath And saith Christopher Carlile where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual Number it signifieth Immortality as Gnets Cojim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality and so when Neshamaâ— hath Caijm joyned to it it signifies the soul is immortal in Gen. 2. 7. Secondly Though this promise is not altogether so plainly expressed in the Text as the Threatning is yet seeing the Threatning Iâ— the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye is expressed plainly as the reward of his disobedient eating it follows by consequent saith Mr. Burges that some good thing is promised to obedience And what else say I can that good See Vindiciae legis lect 13. p. 123. Vindiciae Faederis â— 9. And Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 6 8. thing be but the confirmation of his present mutable created perfections by his obedient eating of the Tree of life for in case he had but first eaten of that Tree that once eating should by Gods Covenant have confirmed his nature in his present created persections to him and to all his posterity for ever Thirdly saith Mr. Ball the Lord having respect to the immutability of Adams Nature was pleased to try this obedience by symbolical Precepts But when the creature should grow to absolute perfection and unchangeablenesse then such symbolical Precepts and outward Seals should cease as needlesse It is generally granted that the Command concerning the two Trees was but for the present triall of Adams obedience And hence it follows that as soon as the triall was made which was to be made in the very day of Adams creation for God had determined to finish all his Works both of the visible and invisible Creation both of the earthly and of the spiritual Creation in six dayes as I have shewed at large in the Institution of the Sabbath then these symbolical signs of the two Trees must cease as needlesse God was pleased to promise the confirmation of his present natural perfections for one act of obedience so that had Adam but once eaten of the Tree of â—â—â—e as doubtlesse in wisdome he would have done before any other fruit if the Devil had not suddenly circumvented him by his Serpentine subtilty he had been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him for ever and then these symbolical Precepts should have ceased as needlesse as we see by experience they did cease upon Adams once eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill and so in like manner they should have ceased in case he had but once eaten of the Tree of life for when a Covenant is once fulfilled it ceaseth to be a Covenant any more for the performer hath the perpetual fruition of the benefit of it and so in like sort the will of God was that the once offering of the body of Christ should merit the eternal salvation of all the Elect Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 7. 27. Heb 9. 28. Fifthly This was the first Covenant saith Mr. Clendon wherein there is no mention of obedience to the moral Law In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 22. Secondly saith he Adam was under the obedience of the moral Law before God made any Covenant with him Gen. 1. 27. God created man in his own Image and this Image of God did stand in perfect Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse so that at the first instant of Adams creation he was under the obedience of the Moral Law even before God brought him into Paradise for he was created out of Paradise but the Covenant was not made with him till after he came into Paradise and being created perfect in knowledge he did perfectly know the eternal will of God and accordingly he did perfectly obey it And it may well be called the Law of nature but not a Covenant of nature because no promise of any reward was made to Adam for keeping the moral Law therefore perfect obedience to the moral Law was not the condition of the first Covenant but it was a necessary condition of mans perfection and a necessary consequent of Gods perfection that man was so created Sâ—xthly It is not necessary saith Mr. Burges to make it a question whether the breach of the moral Law would have In vindiciae legâ—s p. 118. undone Adam and his posterity as well as the transgression of the positive Law for all must necessarily think that the moral Law planted in his heart And obedience thereunto was the greatest part of Adams happinesse and holinesse Mark that he saith And obedience thereunto In which speech he doth fully concur with Mr. Clendon that Adam could not sin a moral sin Seventhly Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith The Law given to the In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51. first Adam non comedendi was over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit And a little after he calls it That special Law of not eating the forbidden fruit which waâ— unto Adam praeceptum symbolicum as Divines call it given over and above and besides all the ten Commandements for a trial of his obedience to all the rest And such saith he was this Law given to Christ the second Adam Eighthly saith Mr. Blake The wicked Jews at their worst In vindiciae Faederis p 60. could observe the command of non licet meats And the Command to Adam saith he was of a like nature But saith Mr. Norton in Page 189. As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws which were accessory Commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles So God at the Creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1. 27. After that gave him this accessory Command concerning the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill Gen. 2. 17. part of and reducible thereto as a conclusion to its principle And in Page 90. He concludes that the transgression of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a transgression of the same Law of works which was given afterwards by Moses Reply 2. This comparative Argument will not hold because there is a great difference between the moral Law of nature as it was written in Adams heart and the Decalogue as it was after given by Moses 1 The moral Law written in Adams heart is therefore called the moral Law of nature because it was made connatural to him in his first creation But the Decalogue was given by Moses to fallen Adam and it was given as a Covenant of grace in Christ 2 The Decalogue as it was given by Moses to fallen Adam was given for the most part by way of prohibition to restrain mans corrupt nature But because Adam was created after Godâ— Image in moral
by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. placâ— original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adam means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a siâ—gle person Wille in Rom. 5. Q 19. that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he Thâ— othâ—â— sins of Adam were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father but the soul that sinneth shall dye And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sins propagated to posterity but only the first between which and his other sins there was this difference That by the first the goodnesse of mans nature was lost And by the other the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away 1 Hence it follows that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person as it was against mans nature in general for it was against the Covenant that God made with him touching mans nature in general he being the head of mans nature therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams sinning and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation so then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inslicted on Adams nature for his sinfull act against the first Covenant by eating of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin which is now become nature to us because the Covenant being broken the punishment must fall on ouâ— nature as soon as we have any being in nature but bodily death was not then formally executed neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb as death in sin is but after some distance of time neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement and therefore no other death was threatned and formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams eating but a spiritual death in sin only Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement Such as are alive saith he at the day of Judgement shall not formally dye by the separation of their soul from their body So then it follows by good consequence that neither a bodily death nor eternal death in hell was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams sinning but a spiritual death in sin onely And Dr. Willet saith That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer and not a potential only not that Adams soul saith Mr. Perkins was now utterly abolished but because it was as though it were not and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse and fellowship with God and indeed saith he This is the Death In the right way of dying well p. 490. of all deaths when the creature hath subsisting and being and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God The second Circumstance that proves this death threatned to be meant only of death in sin is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised to the death here threatned Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant was the confirmation and the continuance of his created natural perfections The life promised to Adam and so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his câ—eated perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever in case he did first eat of the Tree of life once eating should have merited the blessing as once eating did merit the curse and this was signified by the name that was given to that Tree it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant And saith Christopher Carlisle where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the duall number it signifieth immortality as genetes Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought immortality and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Crotius Camero Bre. in Eccl. the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise that age should not consume and end his life Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it
Christs Satisfaction not only from me but also from Mr. Norton but I hope my whole Book is a sufficient Reply and a sufficient vindication of the truth 4 There is one Scripture in my following Reply which I have cited to my sense out of Mr. Burges in Vindiciae legis namely Mat. 5. 17 18. which he doth now expound in a differing sense from what he had done in Vindiciae legis namely That Christ came to fulfil the Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation This Exposition he did not give in Vindiciae legis but yet I perceived that he held it to be a truth in it self but by his former exposition I could not conceive that hee ever intended to hold it from this Text and Context or else I had not cited him and now I would have left him out had I not been prevented by the Press for the Exposition that I have now given of that Text in page 113. I beleeve is the truth and it hath the approbation of other eminent orthodox Writers And as for his two Reasons given in page 357. to prove that these words of Christs must bee understood of his Suretiship fulfilling they prove it not but according to the Context they do most fiâ—ly agree to Christs Doctrinal fulfilling as I have expounded that Text. Thus much I thought fit to speak to the Reader 5 Whereas it hath pleased him to give the term of many Novelismes to my Book I reply That every one knows that when any one doth labour to vindicate the true sense of the blessed Scriptures from some long accustomed errors that such Expositors will be accounted to hold Novelismes by them that hold such received errors when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes for in Mark 1. 27. they said What new doctrine is this But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is To make a thorow search into what both sides say and then to judge between us such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans And so resteth Thine in the truth of the Gospel W. PYNCHON A Table of the chief Heads But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen for the better observation of some Points and because some of them are too much for the Margin there set onely the first sentence and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton holds but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive symbolical command about things indifferent in their own nature Page 3. Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws after the time of Adams fall is called the First Covenant of Works and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant as Ainsworth noteth in Psal 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver 12. and with Heb. 9. 19. Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites Paul cals the Law of Works for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by Gods Covenant to purifie their bodies and so to make them fit persons to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary Rom. 3. 27. and 9. 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense Paul doth also call The Law of Faith to the spiritual Jews because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust onely on Christ for Life and Salvation Gal. 3. 2 3. Rom. 2. 26 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws did by Gods Ordinance make them to belong unto two differing Covenants namely both to the Covenant of Works and to the Covenant of Grace contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent in p. 183 184. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature then Eveâ— desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating p. 7 Adam sonned not in soul until he had first sinned in body p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroniously but it was from a meer voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity as equal and reciprocal Covenanters p. 9 122 293 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9. The death of Christ saith Grotius was not determined by any Law that was given to man but by a special Covenant Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adams created nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature p. 10. Adams ignorance of that positive Law as of the event that was at the first given to the Angels which was to serve man though in the event many of them refused and thereby became Devils made him the more apt to be deceived by the Devils temptations p. 11 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adams disobedience to the moral Law but through his disobedience to a meer positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adams justification but it was ordained onely to be the condition of his created perfections and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place p. 14 No act of Adams obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life because no other act of his obedience but that alone was constituted by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practise of moral obedience therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections p. 21 * * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially as the Faculties do from the soul for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject
perfections it was not sutable to be so given to him 3 There is not the like Reason why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the moral Law of nature as there is why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the Decalogue for the Decalogue was given as a Covenant of grace and therefore all the types of grace in Christ do appertain to it by vertue Gods positive Command which forbids many things that are indifferent in their own nature 4 The moral Law of nature did not injoyn Adam to observe every seventh day as a day of rest as the Decalogue doth 5 The fourth Command and some others in the Decalogue are partly of a moral Constitution and partly of a positive See Trap on Mat. 〈◊〉 p 132. Dr. Ames in Medul c. 15. Sect. 12. vindiciae legis p. 62. 148. 213. As for example to observe some time for Gods special worship is moral but the determination of every seventh day is positive 6 The moral Law of nature did not require faith in Christ nor repentance for sin as the Decalogue doth and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings c. must needs belong to it Seeing then there is so great a difference This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue Reason 2. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin If Adams eating had been a sin against the moral Law then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating against the moral Law then the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it had been a moral sin before her act of eating for the Text saith It was a desire to her eyes and she saw it was good for food and a Tree to be desired c. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxime of all that expound the moral Law that it binds the inward man as well as the outward and so saith our Saviour He that look◠upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart Math. 5. 28. And in that respect Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we in Adam first sinned in soul properly And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons Divinity that there was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating And then her Adam sinned not in soul untill he had first sinned in body act of eating had not been her first sin as usually it is esteemed and called and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm In the day thou eatest thereof and not in the day thou desirest to eat shalt thou dye the death Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food and that it was a desire to her eyes yet if then she had but stayed her desire here and had gone no further she had not sinned For such positive Laws as this do not bind the inward man but the outward man only 1 Take this Instance If a Jew had desired to eat Swines flesh to satisfie his hunger because it was good food by creation and yet had forborn the act of eating he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purifie himself by washing in regard of his said inward desire to eat 2 Take another Instance It was a Ceremonial sin by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corps because it defiled the outward man only and not because it defiled the conscience for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience at least upon some of his near relations not only to desire but really to touch his dead Corps and to carry it to its burial 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford The Law of God because it is holy In Christs dying at Asser 5. p. 141. and spiritual doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motions of our soul and the Law of nature but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God such as was the Lords Command that Christ should dye for sinners is not required in the Law of God If Adam saith he had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit and had not eaten there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil And at Asser 4. page 140. he saith thus A conditional and submissive desire though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God is no sin nor doth the Law positive require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire Gods Command to Abraham saith he to kill his only Son and to offer him a sacrifice to God was a meer positive Command for it is not a command of the Law of Nature nor any other then positive for the Father to kill the Son yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love commanded also in the Law of nature to save his Sons life and doth desire that he may still live this desire and inclination though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God is no sin because the fifth Commandement grounded on the Law of nature did command it And Christs desire that the Cup might passe from him was Mat. 26. 39. The Command of God for Christ to dye was not a moral but a positive Command no sin Mat. 26. 39. Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command as Mr. Norton holds but a positive command and that command saith he did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversly propounded but at thirdly saith he the Father bargains by way of work or hire or wages to give a seed to his Son Es 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his Seed and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue affirmeth That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life was a moral Command and that Christs obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law in page 57. c. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him yet in this he is point blank against him These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws do prove that Adam sinned not in soul but in body only at first by his
actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zanchy Tract Theol c 4. de peccato originall the body is corrupt it resisteth the soul and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning obeyeth the inclination thereof and is governed by it and therefore hence it follows First That Adams sin was not a sin against the moral Law for there is no sin against the moral Law properly till the soul consent Secondly Hence it follows That the guilt of Adams bodily sin was not imputed to his soul till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses Bâ—t the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found
out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premiseâ— 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he had by that act discovered himself to Adam as he did to Christ to be naught then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation for then Adams will would have been governed by his inlightnedmind and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature as they were to Christ and then he would have said to Sathan as Christ did Hence Sathan and then Sathan could not have prevailed afterwards for Adams wisdome was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place as the best food for his confirmation 3 Hence it follows That Adam did not first sin in soul as Mr. Norton holds and as indeed he had done in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature but his sin was only against that positive Law that did only forbid his bodily act of eating as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works 4 Hence it follows That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant about things indifferent in their own nature p. 188. is sound and good namely in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of such a positive Law as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law 5 Hence it follows That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life as his wisdome would have caused him to do in the very first place if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him they should have had a propagated Righteousnesse because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a publick person saith Mr. Burges and also generally all Protestant Divines 6 Hence it follows That the moral Law in Adams nature was not ordained for Adams justification as Mr. Norton holds The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adams justification but as a condition only oâ— his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of liâ—e but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection for God could not make man perfect but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law But Mr. Norton saith in page 231. That four things were requisite to Adams justification by the works of the Law And at fourthly he saith That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience Reply From this Assertion it follows That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity and yet have failed at last and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years space and all the rest after that time after the image of Sathan And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this namely That upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law And saith he in Page 244 Adams justification consisted not in one act of obedience This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant For it is acknowledged by Bucanus whom I No act of Adams obedience had been imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act in eatting of the tree of â—iâ—e in case he had stood have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3. that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first and that first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was not so much personal as natural namely it was common to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adams obedience That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant See Vindicae Legis also in p. 1 19 120. Secondly Hence also it follows That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life that act also had justified him no further but from Sathans accusaâ—ion And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life But any man that hath but half an eye may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses but especially to the Ceremonial Law And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall except only of justification from the Devils accusation and temptation as I said before for no doubt the Dâ—vil had said to God as he said afterwards against Job that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam then Adam would disobey as they had done But in case Adam had not yeelded to Sathans temptation but had taken warning by the prohibition and by the threatning and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit but had first eaten of the Tree of life then he had been justified by that act against Sathans accusation and temptation but he needed no justification in respect of his
his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 17. It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion Heb. 9. 27 28 for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 and in Chap 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these â—hree Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first condemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver 3. and then it follows in ver 4. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us or Rom. 8 4. that the Justification of the Law may be fulfilled in us as Tremelius and the Syriack and the vulgar Latin do translate the Greek word Dicaioma that is here used But here it may be demanded what kind of Righteousness or Justification of the Law doth Dicaioma mean should be fulfilled in us The Answer is Not the righteousness of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret this Text in p. 233. but the righteousness that was typified by the positive Ordinances of the ceremonial Law for the Greek word here used is not Dicaiosune which is the largest word for all kind of righteousness but Dicaioma which is more restrained to the positive Ordinances and which in proper English doth signifie the just Ordinance or the righteous estate of the Law namely either of the Ceremonial or Judicial Laws but especially of the Ceremonial Laws as Mr. Ainsworth sheweth in Numb 31. 21. in Gen. 26. 5. in Deut. 4. 1 14. and in Psal 2. 7. 2 This is the true interpretation of Dicaioma as it is further evident because the Apostle doth use this word to describe the nature of their legal justifications of divine Service in Heb. 9. 1. 10. which he calls carnal justifications in vers 10 as Mr. Dickson and others have well observed 3 This word is also used by the Septuagint for the righteous making of things as well as of persons that were ceremonially unclean for no dead things or unreasonable creatures are guilty of moral sins but by Gods positive Ordinance they may bee guilty of Ceremonial sins Numb 31. 19 20. 21 22 23 24. 4 Hence it follows That this kind of positive ceremonial righteousness was typical to such as had faith in the observation of these Statutes to look from the typical ordinances of cleansing and righteous making to the positive sacrifice of Christ as the perfection of all the typical cleansings for that only was ordained to procure Gods eternal Reconciliation in not imputing sin for the cleansing of the conscience from moral sins therefore such as did thus keep the Statutes and Ordinances of Righteousness as Zachary and Elizabeth did Luke 1. 6. should obtain thereby an everlasting Righteousness in Gods sight instead of the Ceremonial And this Doctrine is cleerly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24 25. I say from these verses it is plain that their outward Deut. 6. 24 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes did make them righteous or justifie their bodies as fit persons for Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary and for feasting with him as their attoned God in Covenant on the flesh of their Passovers and Peace-offerings and so it typifies true justification and therefore their careful doing of these typical Ordinances had an outward blessing promised as to persons that were outwardly justified as well as they which had faith in Christ had the promise of Gods Reconciliation for their eternal justification 5 This word Dicaioma is used by the Septuagint to express their outward righteousness or justification by their exact care in observing the positive judicial Laws of Moses And for this also see Ainsworth in Exod. 21. 1. Num. 15. 15. But as I said before it is chiefly applyed to the positive Statutes that concerned Gods worship in his Sanctuary and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chiefly respect their judicial trials about their Ceremonial righteousness and their justification thereby in his Sanctuary as these places do evidence in all which the Septuagint use the word Dicaioma for that kind of righteousness chiefly as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25 26. Lev. 25. 18. Numb 27. 11. Numb 30. 16. Numb 31. 21. Deut. 4. 1 5 8 14 40 45. Deut. 5. 1 37. Deut. 6. 1 2 17 20 24 25. 2 King 17. 13 34 37. Psal 18. 22. Psal 50. 16. Psal 98. 31. Psal 105. 45. Psal 119. 5 8 12 16 23 33 48 54 71 80 112 117 135 145 155 171. Psal 47. 19. and Ezek. 26. 37. 6 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Justification in Rom. 5. 16. and that most fitly because it doth in Rom. 5. 16. that place set out the true nature of our eternal justification in Gods sight by his gracious forgiveness as being the truth of their legal and typical justifications for the Apostle doth reason here about justification in the same manner as hee did in Heb. 9. for there hee reasons thus If saith hee the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying or justifying of the flesh namely by procuring Gods Attonement as I have explained the matter a little before then saith hee How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works namely by obtaining Gods Attonement for your moral sins as it is the truth of the typical justification And just after this sort doth the Apostle reason in Rom. 5. 16. Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness is of many offences to justification The tongue of Angels cannot express the true nature and form of our eternal justification plainer than in the words of this 16. verse but for further light I will cite Tindals Translation thus And the gift is not over one sin as death came through one sin of one that sinned For damnation came of one sin to condemnation but the gift came to justifie from many sins 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. By the Rightoousness of one namely by the righteousness of Christ in obeying Gods positive Law and Covenant by making his soul a Sin-offering
The Meritorious Price OF MANS REDEMPTION OR Christs Satisfaction discussed and explained 1 By shewing how the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ did satisfie Gods Justice pacifie his Wrath and procure his Reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot 2 By vindicating the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ from that most dangerous Scripture-less Tenenâ— that is held forth by Mr. Norton of New England in his Book of Christs Sufferings affirming that he suffered the Essential Torments of Hell and the second death from Gods immediate vindicative wrath 3 By shewing that the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ in relation to his Office of Mediatorship is a distinct sort of obedience from his moral obedience in Chapter the third and elsewhere 4 By shewing that the Righteousness of God so called in Rom. 3. 21 22 26 in Rom. 10. 3 in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Phil. 3. 9. is to be understood of God the Fathers performance of his Covenant with Christ namely that upon Christs performance of his Covenant by combating with Satan and at last by making his death a sacrifice he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners and not impute their sins to them And therefore 1. This Righteousness of God must needs be the formal cause of a sinners justification And 2. It must needs be a distinct sort of Righteousness from the Righteousness of Christ contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent This is evidenced in Chap. 14. and elsewhere 5 By explaining Gods Declaration of the combate between the Devil and the seed of the woman in Gen. 3. 15. from whence as from the foundation-principle this present Reply doth explain all the after prophecies of Christs Sufferings 6 By clearing several other Scriptures of the greatest note in these Controversies from Mr. Nortons corrupt Expositions and by expounding them in their right sense Both according to the Context and according to sundry eminent Orthodox Writers By William Pynchon Esq late of New England London Printed by R. I. for Thom. Newberry and are to be sold at his Shop in Cornhil over against the Conduit near the Royal Exchange 1655. To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the sâ—ed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-saols for a sinful Male factor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this seed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be
that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joynec ' to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitted by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death bue a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. The quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christ obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Arrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen
themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. faith You cannot shew me in all the Old or New Testament any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ where it is written If the Man Christ sin he shall eternally dye I tremble saith he at such expressions and hence I infer That then Christ could not be Adams Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant The true nature of Christs death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own Priestly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at 1. 23. As Christ assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours so his death in the formality of it was not to be like ours but of a far differing nature A deseription of Christs merit namely how he merited our Redemption p. 146 176 130 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons Man sins and the Man Christ dyes is but a Paralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 150 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the 〈…〉 or all Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 〈◊〉 doth not comprehend Christ within the composs of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet faith Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 91. he could not beleeve the incarnation of the Second person for then he should have understood of his own fall and then consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But faith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And faith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so faith Austln in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate him from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decrees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because he was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our re-demption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound hi 〈…〉 nd to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p. 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p. 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification
p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romans p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousuess of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgements and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth to us whereby we are truly both counted just and also are so indeed For Paul affirmeth that Justification doth consist herein that our sins are forgiven us and that they are no more imputed to us And saith he in p. 410 The disputation is not about any Righteousness that cleaveth unto us but about Justification which is the forgiveness of sins But this Righteousness saith he hath no place or seat in our minds but in God onely by whose will onely our sins are forgiven us These speeches taken from him on the 10 and 11 chap. of the Romans must needs be his last and most refined expressions of the Formal cause and he doth also apply the imputation of Christs Righteousness to the meritorious cause as I apprehend by comparing his whole drift together or else he should cross his said definition of the Righteousness of God Reconciliation hath two parts namely Justification and Adoption or thus Gods gracious pardon is the whole of Reconciliation p. 233 in p. H hat 3. and in p. 253 Sacrifices of Attonement and washings from legal uncleanness were ordained for their outward ceremonial Justification from their ceremonial sins under the first Covenant and so it was a lively type of our true justification in Gods sight under the Now Covenants p. 235 * Add this Note to p. 239. at 5. Dicaioma was used by the Seventy for the Jews outward justiâ—â—cation in observing their judicial Laws as well as of their ceremonial Rites And so also this word Dicaioma is applyed to the Heathen Judicials in Rom. 1. 32. And saith Dr. Willet on that verse this word Dicaioma is not there meant of the moral Law as some Interpreters do expound it but of the judicial Laws of the Heathens and again it is sometimes applied as a proper word to denote either their judicial Laws or their religious though idolatrous Rites as in 1 Mac. 1. 14 51 and 2 Mac. 2. 21. The Jews after their Prophets ceased abused the use of their typical and ceremonial Justifications by the works of the first Covenant to claim thereby an eternal justification in Gods fight p. 245 The material cause of Justification disputed and explained p. 248 Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious and formal causes p. 251 252 255 137 191 * Add this Note to p. 252. Mr. Ainsworth in Lev. 8. 30. and in other places also doth agree with the Dialogue in making Attonement to be a term Synonima to justification in the formal cause of it and so doth Peter Martyr often as in Rom. p. 228. Herein saith he consisteth our justification to have our sins forgiven us and to bee reconciled to God And so Calvin speaks often as in Inst b. 3. c. 11. sect 11. They saith he be judged rightâ—ous that be reconciled to God the manner how is declared for that God justifieth by forgiving And saith he in c. 14. sect 17. to touch it by the way this righteousness standeth of reconciliation And saith Tindal in his Prologue to Rom. ult by justifying saith he understand no other thing then to be reconciled to God and to be restored into his favour and to have thy sins forgiven thâ—e c. These and sundry others do accord with the Dialogue that Reconciliation which is the same with Attonement is the formal part of justification Price That only ought to be called the full price of mans Redemption that was constituted to be accepted of grace as the full and formal price by Gods voluntary positive Covenant p. 256 221 267 77 202 * Add this Note to p. 259. at the word Caphar and also to p. 235. Gods Attonement procured is said to sanctifie the sinner because it did justifie him from the guilt of all his sins and so the word Sanctified must be understood in Act. 26. 18. of being made extrinsecally sanctified as it is in Heb. 10. 10 14. and so the word purified in Act. 15 9. must be understood of their being purified from the guilt of their sins or of their being made rightâ—ous by justification as Peter Martyr on the Rom. p. 392. and others do explain it for this Text is an answer to the question touching the necessity of Circumcision and of their other legal purifyings for the false Apostles esteemed the beleeving Gentiles to be unclean unless they did observe their legal purifyings Act. 10. 14. 15. 24 28. so likewise the word Cleansed in 1 Joh. 1. 7. and in Tit. 2. 14. is put for their being cleansed from the guilt of their sins by Gods Attonement or for their being justified and not for their inherent sanctity though it is also true that none are justified or made extrinsecally righteous and holy by Gods Attonement until they be first inherently sanctified Peter Martyr in Rom. 1. 6 7. on these words Called to be Saints saith If we will search out the strength of the signification of the word Sancti that is Saints or holy It cometh saith he as Austin teacheth of this word Sanctiom to Constitute for that saith he is called Holy which is constant and firm and appointed to abide but nothing saith he doth more let us to abide for ever than doth sin therefore it cometh to pass that holiness consisteth chiefly in the forgiveness and
25 136 233 258 ib. 26 134 140 180 228 ib. 27 15 244 ib. 31 125 4 Â 88 ib. 25 312 5 9 10 229 ib. 12 31 ib. 14 31 153 ib. 16 240 and so it is translated justified in Syracides 14 20. ib. 18 135 211 228 233 240 ib. 19 16 153 211 233 343 8 3 49 226 237 and see the Dialogu p. 116 ib. 4 119 237 238 260 ib. 23 29 ib. 32 95 179 312 350 9 31 244 10 3 138 232 237 ib. 4 242 15 30 335 1 Corinth 1 24 25 424 6 11 237 259 260 ib. 20 256 9 24 178 340 15 29 306 ib. 30 53 29 2 Corinth 5 21 207 13 4 423 3 13 262 ib. 16 342 4 4 5 47 5 11 270 Philippians 1 30 340 2 6 132 139 ib. 8 9 124 344 ib. 9 10 11 177 3 9 120 123 233 Twice ib. 10 11 370 4 3 340 Colossians 1 21 22 434 ib. 29 340 2 14 15 124 146 344 234 419 1 Tim. 2 6 256 4 10 340 2 Tim. 2 5 178 4 7 8 178 340 Titus 2 14 p. 50 259 Philemon v. 18 Â 87 219 and see Peter Martyrs Com. pl. part p. 4. 263. Hebrews 1 3 p. 252 2 10 17 90 92 93 344 386 427 430 ib. 14 90 294 357 419 ib. 17 18 165 170 194 4 16 136 140 5 6 169 ib. 7 299 303 334 336 7 22 115 118 ib. 21 426 ib. 28 90 8 3 430 ib. 12 139 233 258 9 110 49 118 235 260 ib. 13 48 51 120 214 235 260 432 ib. 14 90 137 214 43â— ib. 15 16 90 137 181 420 4â—8 ib. 18 23 120 ib. 22 124 ib. 24 196 ib. 26 49 195 ib. 27 28 147 358 10 4 433 ib. 5 294 ib. 7 43 ib. 10 46 122 124 237 259 ib. 32 340 12 2 146 178 269 339 13 13 270 1 Peter 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition in this THe Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of his Father and his own voluntary consent obeyed the Law doing the Command in a way of Works and suffering the Essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original Righteousnesse as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth to beleeving Sinners for their Righteousnesse Reply I deny several things in this Proposition to be true But because all the particulars are but barely affirmed here though some proofs are hereafter alleged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annâ—xed In the mean time the Reader may please to take notice That I deny first That Christ made any such Covenant by his voluntary consent with his Father as to be bound in the same obligation with Adam to fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction Secondly That the first Covenant made with Adam was not touching his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law but it was touching his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature CHAP. II. And first the true Nature of the first Covenant is Discussed SECTION 1. Where also Mr. Nortons second Proposition is examined which is this GOD in the First Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalâ— live Lev. 185. But in the doy thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Iustice Mr. Norton proves by these two Scriptures that the nature of the first Covenant made with Adam was in relation to his obedience and disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature and he doth make great account of both these Scriptures because he cites them very often to that sense And in Page 186. He affirms that God propounded the Law of Works to man before his fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience And in Page 189. He saith That the summe of this Law is the two Tables and saith he it is called the Law of Works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life Lev. 18. 5. And this Law he calls Moral positive the habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of the Creation this binds perpetually and it is immutable And in Page 190. he saith The Transgression them of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the said Law of Works which was given to Adam and afterwards to Moses Reply 1. In opposition to Mr. Nortons description of the nature of the first Covenant I shall labour to prove that the true nature of the first Covenant was in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and not aâ—out the Moral Law of nature My first Reason is this If God made a Covenant with Adam concerning his obedience The first Covenant was not made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the Moral law of nature but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a positive Command about things indifferent in their own nature or disobedience about his eating of the two Trees the one called the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which was indifferent to be eaten or not eaten in their own nature then the first Covenant was not made concerning his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature unlesse Mr. Norton will affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam in his Innocency of a differing nature the one of positive and the other of moral Commands But it is absurd to affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam of such a differing nature Therefore one of the two must needs be null But the Covenant concerning the two Trees cannot be null because that Covenant is expressed in the Text therefore hence it follows that the moral Law of nature was not propounded to Adam as the first Covenant of works with the promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience as Mr. Norton affirmeth upon Scriptures mis-interpreted and on this sandy foundation he builds the greatest part of his Answer to the Dialogue The first Covenant was made with Adam concerning mans nature in general as he was the head of all mankind and that Covenant was this Eat of the Tree of life in the first place for I have ordained it as thou mayest perceive by the name given to it for the confirmation of thy created natural perfections to thee and to all thy seed for ever as these places conferred together do prove Gen. 1. 29. Gen. 2. 9. Gen 3.
was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us with out some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent â—and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Law set apart he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself And hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant then not by his obedience to the moral Law 5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law then his desire That the Cup might passe from him in Matth. 26. 39. had been a sinful desire But saith Mr. Rutherford because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to dye therefore that desire was no sin as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law but it was commanded over and besides the moral Law as I cited him in the former Section 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art beyond others by which hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarnation to be moral obedience or else he would never say as hee If the Incarnation of Christ had been an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto â—e was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under â—he Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141 and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dau. 9. 24. 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely of the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sim See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10. 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin Heb 9 26. namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Iustifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8.
14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jastification And in this respect the Temple is also called The habitation of justice Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither were justified persons as to the outward man yea all the Nation in this respect are holy Exod. 19. and therefore any of Israel though never so vild by moral sins yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary as justified persons in regard of that place but on the contrary if any man though never so godly and therefore morally justified did but want this ceremonial cleansing they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in Gods Sanctuary and were guilty of cutting off by death Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19 13. so then their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law was but to typisie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time at the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse as in Jer 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33. 18. finned against me and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me Here cleansing is put for justification by forgivenesse And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall bee clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idels will I cleanse you And in vers 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9. 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fulnesse of time doth purge us Heb. 1. 3. and cleanse us Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Fathers Attonement which doth formally expiate sin cleanse it purge it and wash it away See Ains in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 16. 30 33. Numb 8. 7 21. Numb 19. 9. Psal 517. So that to them that are in Christ there in no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers of Gal 4. 4. is this God sent forth his Son This word sent implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity or else the Father could not have sent him forth for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son because they are in nature equal Job 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent which may bee called a Covenant I came down from Heaven said Christ not to do mine own humane will but the will of him that sent me Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman For according to Gen 3 15. Hee was made of the seed of the woman by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law Being made of a woman that was a Jew he was made under the Law of Types 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law But hee could not redeem any from the boundage of Moses Rites untill hee had fulfilled all the Types by his own blessed death and sacrifice in the fulnesse of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God and from Sathans Head-plot It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice but that he did as he was a Jew only but he fulfilled the Types as hee was a Mediator only by his death and sacrifice and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us both from the bondage of Moses Rites and also from Sathans Head-plot And thus we may see that the Types of the ceremonial Law especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice were ordained to The ceremonial Types of cleansing especially of Priest and Sacrifice did typifie our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacrifice in precuring Gods Attonement Heb 9. 13. typifie the Law of Mediatorship and our moral justification by him Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for mans redemption let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies for in them as in a glasse they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption and therefore when Christ came into the world he said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in place of Types then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God by the doing of which will we are sanctified namely purged purified or cleansed from sin as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9. 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying see Ains in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all To cleanse men from sins meerly Ceremonial the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance Heb. 9. 13. and hence the Apostle insers in vers 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this namely in the super-excellency of this High-priest above the Legal-priest in vers 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood as vers 12. but in the super-â—xcellency of this High-priest and his sacrifice united personally as vers 14. How much more c. Suppose a Priest as excellent had been found and also a Sacrifice as excellent in two distinct persons yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator but the admirable personal union of this High-priest and Sacrifice did comprise the act of
one Mediator for so saith the Text he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit namely by his God-head and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament vers 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin And secondly hence it had vertue to confirm the Testament for the many as it is expressed in vers 15 16 17. Thirdly I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9. 27. with Gal. 4. 4 5. which lyes thus He shall confirm the Testament for the Many the last Seven that is to say in the very end of the last Seven which is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed there must of necessity be the death of the Testator for a Testament is confirmed and of force after men be dead it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives Heb. 9. 16 17. The next clause in Daniel is this And in the balf of that Seven which is three years and a half namely in the end of this last half of the last Seven which also is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4. 4. be shall end Sacrifice and oblation and this speech is directly parallel to that in Gal. 4. 4 5. He shall redeem them from under the Law that is to say by one and the same act of his Death and Sacrifice he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation and by that act he shall redeem us not only from the bondage of Moses Ceremonies but also from Sathans Head plot or as it is in vers 24. By his death He shall finish Trespasse-offering and end Sin-offerings and so make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and bring in an everlasting Righteousnesse for he shall confirm unto us all the Legacies of the New Testament by his death where the Spirit for regeneration and forgivenesse of sin for Justification are the general Legacies Thus have I shewed though not so compendiously as I could wish that the word Law in Gal. 4. 4. must bee understood of the ceremonial Law only And therefore first All that Mr. Norton saith touching Christs subjection to the moral Law from Gal. 4. 4. as the proper Law of his Mediatorship there intended falls to the ground And secondly his charge of the second Heresie which he proveth from this Text doth justly fall upon his own head for this is certain that if a Curse be not justly given it shal not come on the innocent Prov. 26 27. but it must return to the giver Psal 109. 17. Thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Norton doth again most grosly wrong this Text to prove that Christ suffered the curse of hell torments in his death in p. 103. The last branch of Mr. Nortons third Query is this In the Acceptation of this Obedience Reply 4. This Acceptation Mr. Norton takes for granted which is denied He should have proved as well as affirmed that God accepted of Christs legal obedience as our obedience then hee had shewed his skill and then it had indeed been meritorious and of such value and sufficiency But because hee doth but barely affirm it therefore I shall passe it by without any further examination here because I have shewed the contrary in the former Section and also in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. His fourth Query is a bare Affirmation And the reason of the denial I will shew when I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. CHAP. IV. The Examination of Mr. Nortons first Distinction in Page 7. which is this Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the Curse And then he makes this to be the distinguishing Character between them The Essential part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth from the Curse considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the condition or disposition of the Patient The Accidental part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth not from the Curse considered absolutely but from the disposition of the Patient being under such a Curse SECT 1. Reply 1. THis Distinction hee takes for granted for hee shews not how or in what sense any of these accidental parts do flow from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse further then by two Humane and Civil Resemblances of his meaning But the Dialogue gave him a fair occasion to clear his meaning by objecting sundry particulars of the Curse and instead of a fair answer hee puts the Reader off with this sleight The reasoning of the Dialogue is impertinent The dispute is about the Essential parts of the Curse these are but Accidental because they proceed not from the Curse absolutely considered but from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse Now seeing he doth thus hide his meaning How can I or the Reader judge what weight of truth there is in his distinction let the Reader judge whether such unexplained distinctions bee not rather evasions than explications SECT 2. YOu may see it saith Mr. Norton exemplified in Civil punishments in the execution of death upon a Malefactor the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of punishment The gradual decay of the senses impotency of spirits are â—ccidental parts of the punishment Or thus saith he it may be further illustrated in the case of the execution of imprisonment upon a Debtor imprisonment is of the essence of punishment but duration in prison is from the disposition of the Debtor namely his insufficiency to pay the debt Reply 2. All the sufferings of Christ were to bee performed The natural order of proceedings in Courts of justice is not fit to exemplifie the order of proceedings in voluntary causes and Covenants from the voluntary cause being founded in Gods good will and pleasure and agreed on by a mutual and reciprocal Covenant between the Trinity and not from the natural order of Court-proceedings but Mr. Norton doth exemplifie all this from the natural order of Court-justice It is all one as if he should exemplifie the Incarnation and the Death of Christ by the natural order of our conception and death It is a known maxim That paralleling of justice between cases Divine and Humane is dangerous and from Humane to Divine is an unsafe way of reasoning and savors too much of prying into the secrets of God contrary to Dâ—ut 20. 29. and of too much boldnesse in giving a reason of Gods eternal decrees which is not modesty in the creature Rom. 11. 33. But Mr. Norton seems to father this opinion and distinction on Dr. Ames in his Answer to Bellarmine about the Eternity of Hell-torments in Christs sufferings as his marginal Note shews But the self-same Dr. Ames in his Marrow lib. 1. c. 16. Sect. 4. 7. 9. doth expresse himself to bee of another mind touching Eternity is essential to the
taken away Col. 2. 14. 2 I confesse I am at a losse to find out the force of Mr. Nortons reason here given But it may be it will the better appear when it is drawn into the form of an Argument And thus it may run If the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Then absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation not of the essence of Punishment But the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Therefore absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation But not of the essence of Punishment Suppose the Antecedent part of the first Proposition were granted though it cannot bee all granted yet I cannot see strength enough in it to make good the consequence It is no good way of reasoning to argue what is essential or not essential in the Curse from the event namely from what de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Iustice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Iustice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â—â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the In his Marrow 〈◊〉 1. 6. 25. n. 38. creature coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the probate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Iustice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blaspherry to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods
justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is an effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de factâ— are not Adam till it please God to make an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal death it is from Gods justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c. 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in â—o 5. Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev. 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiaâ— teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Piggbius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because
we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christs Priesthood both on the Fathers part and on Christs part 1 It is said of the Father That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions that is to make his obedience perfect through afflictions or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions hee would have objected thus against Christ In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience as I had to try Adams obedience this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God as Adam was Therefore it became so perfect a Work-man as God was to declare that Sathan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman and to do his worst to pervert his obedience Gen. 3. 15. And secondly It behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to enter the Lists with Sathan not in his divine nature but in our nature and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore it is also said That it behoved 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 13â— 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 numericâ—l 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 infers 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 â—pec 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 sufferiâ—gs were from the vâ—luntary 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 sour 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. 15. 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 prevail 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 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. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso 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 alittle 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 becausâ— 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 ourguilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death iâ— not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their
Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. 11. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But faith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is so be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statue of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. 8. 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled is on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Iebovah bath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Tement was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Levz 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operate to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience from their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Iesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word Better Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation
it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfactio for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and the Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a two fold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad gives this exposition of Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell is of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the
of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Aâ—ab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21 〈…〉 for it 〈◊〉 it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods imputation and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God that highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Iustice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we consess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditoinal promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in
sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numerice and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would fain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 3. 15. Rom 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation
forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law Reply 7. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature as his moral Law was positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature as the eating of the two Trees was for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature but reserved in Gods secret Decrec to be imposed on man for an act or acts for a time as hee pleased to appoint and then to be annihilated again I grant that the moral Law of nature did direct Adam to obey God in whatsoever positives he should appoint But yet by the Law of nature he knew not any of Gods positives till they were particularly revealed neither can man without a special revelation know the reason of them because they depended only on the good pleasure of God and therefore Adams moral perfections could not prevent but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of positives as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 I do not remember and I pray let the Judicious consider it that eternal death is directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at the first death in sin and ever after a bodily death but eternal death is often directly threatned for Unbeleâ—f and Rebellion against the Law of Grace and therefore the threatning in Gen. 2. 17. may bee exempted from that threatning though not from death in sin 3 Let it bee supposed that the first Covenant with Adam was made in relation to the moral Law which is denied and cannot be granted yet it is evident that God doth somtimes alter from See P Martyr in Com. pl. par 1. pag 190. that Law for he commanded Abraham to kill his only son which was contray to the sixth Commandement and hee commanded the Israelites to spoyl the Egyptians of their goods Exod. 11. 2. and Christ bid the Impotent man when he was healed to carry his bed on his back on the Sabbath day These examples shew that God is not tyed to his revealed moral Laws as wee are but that he hath a supreme power to alter from that Rule to his secret Decree but when God is God doth somtimes alter from the rule of his moral Commands to his secret Decree pleased to bind his promises or threatnings by an oath then we may be sure his will so revealed is unalterable because his oath doth alwayes declare what his secret Will and Decree is And hence it comes to passe that his word and command which he delivers to us for our rule is many times alterable because it is many times differing from his secret Decree And hence it is that when his threatnings are annexed to his Laws it is to shew unto man what his sin deserves but not what God will certainly execute for it is his good pleasure sometimes to Relax his threatning which is a forgivenesse of temporal plagues Psal 78. 38. 2 Sam. 12. 13 14. for as there are two sorts of punishments threatned so there are two sorts of pardon Isal 78 38. one in relation to temporary and the other in relation to eternal punishment and so in like sort there are two sorts of justification 4 This sentence as it relates to eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. In the Right way of dying well saith Perkins must be understood with an exception borrowed from the Gospel or Covenant of Grace revealed to Adam presently after his fall The exception goes thus Thou shalt certainly dye whensoever thou eatest of the forbidden fruit except I give thee a deliverance from death namely the Seed of the woman to destroy the Devils Head-plot And saith Vrsinus after that sentence in Gen. 2. 17. there followed the equity moderation and lenity of the Gospel in his Ans to Q. 40. And saith Baxter How can it stand with the truth and justice of God to dispence with his threatnings he answers thus to In his Aphora p. â—8 and in Append. p. 122. this Question When threatnings are meerly parts of the Law and not also predictions of events and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabout then they may be dispenced with without any breach of truth and he gives two Instances to explain his meaning the last of them runs thus when God saith Thou shalt dye the death the meaning is Death shall bee the due reward of thy sin so that it may be inflicted at my pleasure and not that hee should certainly suffer it in the event And he cites Vossius concluding that the Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispenced with and abrogate And to this sense saith another learned Divine The commination in Gen. 2. 17. is like to some other of Gods threats against the Transgressors of his Law but it bindeth not God that he shall have power to release or mitigate what and to whom it pleaseth him The Elect are called the children of wrath as well as others De Recens peccatoris par 1 c. 1. But saith Mr. Norton It may bee answered that the Holy Ghost in these and such like places of Scripture doth signifie what is due to sin and sinners and what their estate must needs bee in their own apprehensions if they will judge of themselves according to the light of true reason for there is in sin a certain naughtiness for which it justly may bee and indeed is odious unto God but it will not follow thereupon that he ceaseth to love them Whom he hath predestinate unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. All these Instances do evidence that Gods threatnings in the event are often alterable and therefore that his threatning of eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. in case it be there threatned is alterable and doth not bind God neither to leave the Elect under the power of their spiritual death in sin nor yet to inflict eternal death neither on the Elect nor on their Surety and therefore according to the liberty of his eternal Will and purpose hee ordained that the conlfict of Christ with Sathan in continuing obedient to the death of the Crosse and at last making his soul a sacrifice should be a valuable consideration whereion hee would dispence with the rigor of his commination and so let fall or suspend the pnealty of eternal death in case it had been the chief thing threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as most do hold and therefore for their sakes I have cited these Instances though still I think my first exposition of Gen. 2. 17. is sound and good in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. CHAP. XI SECT I. The Examination of Isa 53. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Mr. Jacob interprets these sorrows of Hell sorrows which Christ bare in our stead or else we must have both them THe Dialogue in
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 hâ—e gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I consess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peâ—rced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiaâ— saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgiessions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise hiâ— and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The band of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Job 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Job 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Male factor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unfound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormiented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with
Sathan 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Sathan Isa 53. 7. when hee suffered himself to bee apprehended by a band of armed Souldiers and to bee bound Es 53. 7. as a prisoner and as a Malefactor and in this sense Christ saith I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. I will readily venture my life in the combate with that roaring Lion Sathan for the redemption of my sheep And thus Moses did offer his life to redeem the lives of the Israelites when they had forfeited their lives into the hands of Gods justice by worshipping the Golden Calf Exod. 32. Then Moses said I will now go up to the Lord peradventure I shall make Attonement for your sin and be said to God If thou wilt forgive their sin and if not but that they must still dye blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written called the Book of the living Ps 69. 29. and called also the Writing of the house of Israel Eze. 13. 9. And herein Moses saith Ainsworth dealt as a Mediator between God and men and was a figure of our Mediator Christ who laid down his life for his sheep Ioh. 10. 15. and redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses say the Hebrew Doctors was That hee might dye instead of them and bear their iniquity according to that in Isa 53. 5. He was wounded for our Trespasses For say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation Ex. 32. 32. See Ains in Exod. 32. 32. But in case Moses had been made guilty of their sin by Gods imputation doubtless hee had not been a fit person to offer his life as a Mediator for their lives This resemblance I grant is but very weak because Moses did not offer to give his life as a Mediator for them by a mutual Covenant but of his own head and therefore his offer was refused yet that speech of the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation may somewhat inlighten touching that place in 1 Pet. 3. 18. where it is said That 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ suffered the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God for hee being just in Gods sight ingaged himself acording to a mutual and reciprocal Covenant to enter the Lists with Sathan and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Sathan even to the death of the Crosse that so at last hee might make his soul a sacrifice of Attonement and so bring us to God Mark this Hee is called the just in all his sufferings But hee was not so called in the Jews account for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor Neither could hee bee said to be absolutely just in the sight of God in case God had imputed the guilt of our sins to him in a formal legal way But saith Peter The just suffered for the unjust hee that knew himself to be every way just in the fight of God and of his Law hee entred the Lists and suffered from Sathans enmity and yet still he continued obedient to the death and so continued to bee just And hence wee may see wherein the efficacy of Christs All Christs sufferings were without any imputation of sin from God and therefore he was accepted and so his obedience to the death doth bring us to God sufferings do consist namely in this because in all his conflict with Sathan his patience was not disturbed nor his obedience perverted but to the very last hee approved himself to bee most just and righteous in the sight of God and therefore hee conquered Sathan by righteousnesse as the ancient Divines do very often speak because he strove lawfully according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters And so hee won the prize 2 In his combate with Sathan his obedience was eminent above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that patiently submits his life to bee taken away by justice because hee put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Sathan and in all his sufferings that so hee might please him that had chosen him to bee the Captain of our salvation and in that respect his chastisements which hee suffered from Sathans malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper are said to bee for our peace and healing by obtaining a reconciliation for us and so he doth heal us and bring us to God and so say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the Just maketh Reconciliation It is no evill in it self to bee punished from a voluntary undertaking of a combate but to bee punished in a legal way through a legal imputation of sin and guilt that is a true evill indeed 3 Take notice in some particulars how eminently active Christ was voluntary in complying with all his sufferings or else they had not been meritorious See also Ch. 6. Christ was in his sufferings as a voluntary Combater 1 He was lead by the Spirit that lighted on him at his Baptism into the Wildernesse as soon as ever hee was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office on purpose to try Masteries with the Devils temptations which no man else in the world might presume to do but this Captain of our salvation and in this respect all his sufferings may more fitly bee called active sufferings or active passive obedience rather than passive obedience for he put forth a ready and voluntary compliance with them and that by way of anticipation according to Covenant as a voluntary undertaker of the combate for our Redemption and this kind of obedience in his sufferings made his chastisements to be meritorious for our peace and for our healing as the Dialogue shews in p. 49. 2 Take another instance of Christs voluntary obedience in entring into the Lists with Sathan as the Captain of our salvation in all that long businesse that is called his Passion 1 He manifested himself to bee continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to bee for his apprehension and death Luke 12. 50. Ioh. 12. 23 27. c. Ioh. 13. 1. and in verse 2 3. Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand namely to order himself in every circumstance of his sufferings in his combate with Sathan according to the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for the Text saith That he knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him Joh. 6. 64. Joh. 13. 11. therefore hee was active and provoked Judas at Supper to go out saying unto him What thou doest do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and then saith hoe The Son of man goes as it is determined namely by a mutual Covenant Luke 22. 22. and then said he The Prince of this world cometh to incounter with mee with more armed violence than formerly but saith
saith thus in commendation of Christ Who is this that hath ingaged his heart to approach unto me saith the Lord Now hence it may fitly bee demanded how Christ did ingage his heart the answer is that he did it by way of Contract or Covenant and therefore the Hebrew word Gnarab which wee translate ingaged doth properly signifie no more but a conjunction or joyning together but in this place it relates to the conjunction of the Father and the Son in a Covenant for mans Redemption and accordingly it is sometimes put for a conjunction of persons in a league or confederation as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time But thus the whole verse in Jeremy may bee read and paraphrased His excellent one shall bee of himself and his Ruler shall go forth from the midst of him and I will cause him to draw neer namely as a Priest with an acceptable sacrifice for this Hebrew word is used in Lev. 1. 2. for offering an oblation or bringing neer a gift so then to bring neer or approach neer unto God is to offer unto him and to offer a sacrifice for sin is to make Attonement See Ains in Lev. 6. 26. and therefore one of these is used for another as in 1 Chron. 16. 1. they brought neer burnt offerings for which in 2 Sam. 6. 17. is written David offered burnt offerings so in Numb 6. 14 16 17. The Nazarite shall bring neer his oblation and the Priest shall bring them neer that is both the Nazarite and his sacrifice And saith God of Christ I will cause him to draw neer and approach unto me for who is this that hath ingaged his heart or conjoyned himself with me in a Covenant to do my will for mans Redemption And in answer to this Covenant Christ saith In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Psal 40. 8. Heb. 10. and saith Ainsworth in Psal 148. 14. Psal 40. 8. Christ draweth neer unto God for his people and there hee citeth this Text of Jer. 30. 21. and so also through Christs sacrifice wee have boldnesse to draw nigh to God Heb. 7 19. Heb. 10. 22. 2 As these words He caused him to meet may bee applied to the meeting of the Trinity for the constituting of the eternal Covenant so they may bee applied also in speech of the execution of the said eternal Covenant when Christ met his Father with his sacrifice of Attonement and then the words must go thus The Father made or constituted Him namely his Son to meet him as a Priestly Mediator with his appointed sacrifice of his vital soul to attone his wrath for the iniquities of us all that by nature had gone astray like lost sheep as it is expressed in the beginning of the verse And thus this meeting may bee understood both of the eternal Council and Covenant of the Trinity and also of the execution of it 3 The Learned say that the Hebrew word Pagah in the conjugation Hiphil comes no more but six times in the Old Testament namely in Isa 53. 6. Isa 53. 12. Isa 59. 16. Jer. 15. 11. Jer. 36. 25. Job 36. 32. Now the last five places are rendred both by Tremelius and by our English Translations for such a meeting as is by way of mediation intreaty or intercession Though properly the Hebrew word signifies no more but to make to meet or to appoint some persons to meet for several ends but yet in the said five places it is applied to a meeting by way of intercession As for example in Isa 53. 12. Hee made him to meet for Transgressors namely by way of intercession for Transgressors as our Translations do phrase it 2 In Isa 59. 16. Hee wondred that none was made to meet namely as an Intercessor the Geneva saith Hee wondred that none would offer himself the Seventy say Hee wondred that there was none to deliver But the first sense is most full with the Hebrew 3 In Jer. 15. 11. I will make or cause the enemy to meet thee in the time of thy affliction or I will cause him to intreat thee well The Seventy say to assist thee 4 In Jeremy 36. 25. The three men there named had made to meet namely they had made an agreement as Jobs three friends did Job 2. 11. to meet the King as Intercessors that hee would not burn the rowl The Geneva say They besought him But the Seventy say They opposed or resisted him namely by their intercession and intreaties 5 In Job 36. 32. With clouds he covereth the light and commandeth it by that which commeth betwixt Mr. Broughton reads it thus Hee chargeth it as men do pray namely hee chargeth the clouds as men do intercede by prayer and Tremelius doth concur to that sense and that sense may cause us to remember Gods promise in 1 King 8. 35 36. When they pray I will give rain upon the Lands and it may also cause us to remember Deut. 11. 14. and Zach. 10. 1. c. Now seeing these five places in the conjugation Hiphil do signifie to cause or make a meeting and all of them by way of mediation or intercession Doubtlesse the first place in Isa 53. 6. must in reason have the like signification Mr. Norton saith in page 48. That the Hebrew word in the conjugation Hiphil doth signifie to meet together as upon a heap Reply 1. I apprehend that the word heap doth but mislead the Reader except hee can handsomely shew that every meeting caused by any is a heap I grant that two or three meeting together may bee called Kakal a Church Synagogue or Assembly a I have shewed in the Jews Synagogue Discipline but usually no meeting but a great multitude is called a heap But it appears by what I have said that this meeting of the Mediator caused by the Father to mediate for the Elect cannot fitly bee called a heap though it may fitly bee called a meeting 2 Saith Mr. Norton in page 153. The iniquities of us all gathered together as in a heap were laid upon him And thirdly in page 93. hee saith That all the curses of the Law were heaped together and laid upon him Reply 2. By this you see the reason why Mr. Norton doth make Pagah to signifie to meet together as upon a heap namely that he may make Christ to bee both a heap of sin and a heap of curses in a legal and formal sense 3 Mr. Norton doth also confound his Reader by telling him That one Hebrew root hath contrary significations Piaculum saith he doth signifie both a sacrifice and a sinful deed Reply 3. If the Hebrew word for sin bee taken in a metaphorical Sin is often taken in a metaphorical sense for a Sinsacrifice that procures Gods Attonement for sin signification as well as in a proper then there is no contrary sense though
and from thence the Dialogue doth reason to our translated term in Isa 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all And hence the Dialogue doth reason thus If this phrase of laying upon and so consequently of bearing in Isa 53. 6. doth imply that Christ did bear the guilt of our sins by Gods imputation then by that phrase the Father must bear the guilt of our sins also for he is said to bear our sins in Ps 32. 1. and in Ps 25. 18. This Argument is unavoidably true by building the doctrine of Imputation upon that phrase 2 By this nimble catch of Mr. Nortons hee would have the Reader to beleeve that the Dialogue holds that which it holds not but I have more fully answered to this cavil in Chap. 12. Sect. 1. and there I have shewed how Mr. Norton hath wronged the sense of the Dialogue in other places also But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is a difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ And saith he You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak Reply 11. This speech they do not generally so speak is an acknowledgement that some do so speak And indeed many late Writers do say That imposition of hands with confession of sin did typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ See Taylor on Types and Weams on the Ceremonial Laws saith thus on the Sin-offering They were commanded to lay their hands upon the head of the Sin-offering Lev 4. to signifie that they laid over their sins upon the Beast which was a type of Christ who was made Asham an offering for sin Isa 53. 10. and was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is The guilt of our sins was imputed to him he was not made a sacrifice only for our sins but hee was made sin for us In these words of Mr. Weams and more also which I omit hee hath not a word of our faith of dependance which was truly typified by Imposition of hands but he doth only say that it typified Gods imputing our sins I could cite many others that run that way on Exod. 29. 10. c. but I had rather though they bee obvious cover their names than publish them But the Dialogue in page 33. disproves their Exposition thus A private mans Imposition cannot represent Gods act The Imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot because the Elders action represents the Churches action neither can the Imposition of the Priests and the High Priests because they were types of Christs Priestly Nature and not of the Father Mr. Norton returns this Answer in page 49. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the mind of Expositors at least generall upon the place Reply 12 It is an easie answer to say they are impertinent but the indifferent Reader may see they are pertinent Saith hee Expositors at least generally do not so expound I wish that fewer did but I do also confess that I do not find though I have made diligent inquiry that any of the Ancient Divines did hold that God imputed our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense as I have shewed in the next Chapter yea I find that many late Writers also have no such imputation but too many have some I have named and many more are obvious to the intelligent and it is evident that generally the Antinomians do hold as Mr. Norton holds I say it is obvious to the intelligent that many do make the imposition of hands on the head of the sacrifice with confession of sin to signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore the reasons of the Dialogue above-named are found and good for what they are alleaged namely That imposition of hands by the said persons could not represent Gods action But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders and Priests Reply 13. It is well he hath put in If God so pleased I say to him as he said to me in page 103. if hee should not put in that he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence c. But hee had spoken more full to the point if hee had proved that God had ordained such persons in that act of Attonement to represent God the Father but because hee doth no more but barely say so it will not satisfie a doubting conscience But saith Mr. Norton in page 50. The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exod. 21. 2. or at the year of Jubilee Exod. 25. 40. figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free Redemption by Jesus Christ Reply 14. Good reason there is for it because God ordained it so to bee and therein the Master being also a Father to his servant in letting his servant go free was a type of the father of mercies in that case 2 As to his instance of Cyrus in making him both a type of Christ in page 101. and also a type of the Father in his 50 page by his free deliverance is a very doubtful instance for it is questioned by learned Divines whether hee were a type but in case it were proved that hee was indeed a type yet it reacheth not to prove that all those that imposed hands on the head of their sacrifice were types of Gods imputing our sins to Christ which is the very point on Mr. Nortons part to be proved but he slides from that to instances of by matters But saith the Dialogue If you make the act of laying on of hands on the Sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by his imputation then the same act with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sins to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his Resurrection and Ascension as when he made his oblation here upon earth And so by this Doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven 2 The Dialogue propounds another Argument which Mr. Norton skips over and that is this If you make this imposition of hands upon the head of the Sin-offering to represent Gods laying the sins of the Elect upon Christ by his imputation then the same act of imposition upon the head of their sacrifices of praise must have the same signification for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon the head of his sacrifice of praise with confession of his particular mercies received This act must needs signifie the laying of their persons by their faith of dependence on the sacrifice of Christ for the procuring of Gods favourable
acceptation of their praises and therefore their laying on of hands on the head of their Sin-offering did likewise signifie their faith of dependence on Christ typified Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 51. We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ Reply 15. This is a good confession and I wish that others would take full notice of it namely that there is not a suffient ground from the typical act of imposition of hands on the sacrifice with confession of sin to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore it follows hence that the translated phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all in Isa 53. 6. is not a sufficient proof of it though it be alleaged for that purpose 2 Seeing Mr. Norton doth at last make this confession why then hath hee laboured to defend the imputation of sin from the said imposition of hands with confession of sin as he hath done But saith Mr. Norton in page 51. Sin was laid upon the Scape-goat not after but before its escape Reply 16. If sin was imputed at all to the Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confâ—ssion of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed tighteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the finner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety is free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth
righteousnesse of God cannot bee meant of the righteousnesse of Christ in this Text to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction de Reconc Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5 6. SECT II. 2 I Will now labour to shew the true sense of this Text by which it will appear that Mr. Nortons comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text each clause in the Text lies thus 1 For This word For is a causal particle and implies for this cause 2 He namely God the Father 3 Made that is to say Ordained Constituted Appointed but this could not bee without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity and so he was ordained or constituted to bee made a curse by his combating with Sathan as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him that is to say Christ These two words He and 〈◊〉 in the former part of this verse and God and Him in the latter part of this verse must carefully bee marked as a cleer distinction between the persons as I have also noted above 5 To bee sin for us that is to say To bee a Sin-sacrifice for us as it is rightly and fully opened in the Dialogue this phrase He was to be made sin for us saith the Dialogue must not bee taken in a proper literal sense but in a metaphorical sense being borrowed from the Levitical Law where the sacrifices for sin are often called Sin in the Hebrew Text though our English Translations have added the word Sacrifice by way of exposition as for example in Exod. 29. 14 36. the Hebrew saith thus It is a sin but wee translate it thus It is a Sin-offering we adde the word Offering to the word Sin as the Hebrew text also sometimes doth though very rarely as in Lev. 6. 26. and Lev. 9. 15. the Priest that offereth it for sin this is very neer the word Sin-offering but almost every where the Hebrew doth call it a sin without any addition as in Ex. 29. 14 36. Ex. 30. 10. Lev. 4. 3. 8 14 20 21 24 25 26 29 32 33. Lev. 5. 6 7 8 9 11 12 Lev. 6. 17 25 30. Lev. 7. 7 27. Le. 8. 2 14. Lev. 9. 2 3 7 8 10 15 22. Lev. 10. 16 17 19. Lev. 12. 6 8. Lev. 14 13 19 22 31. Lev. 15. 15 30. Lev. 16 3 5 6 9 11 15 25 27. Lev. 23. 19. Num. 6. 11 14 16. Num. 7. 16 22 28 34 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 87. Num. 8. 8 12. Num. 18. 9. Num. 28. 15 22. Num. 29. 11 16 19 22 25 34 38. 2 Chron. 29. 21 23 24. Ezra 8. 35 Ezra 10. 33. Ezek 40. 39. Ezek. 42. 13. Ezek. 43. 21 22 25. Ezek. 44. 29. Ezek. 46. 20. Hos 4. 8. Hos 8. 11. In all these places the Sin-offering is called Sin in the Hebrew text and this Hebraism the Septuagint do follow and the Chaldy Paraphrase and the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Rom. 8. 3. and Heb. 10. 26. and the use was to expiate moral sins done in ignorance but chiefly it was to expiate their ceremonial sins as the places cited do witnesse These Scriptures do stare in the face of such as make Christ to bee sin for us by a judicial imputation as Judges do when they impute sin to Malefactors as the meritorious cause of inflicting legal punishments upon them 6 It is added which knew no sin namely no sin formally neither by inherent corruption nor by Gods legal imputation and yet notwithstanding though he was every way free God did let Sathan loose upon him as upon a Malefactor to combate with his humane nature to insnare him in some sin or other and to impute sin to him and so to peirce him in the Foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Tree and in this sense it is said by Peter that God made him to bear our sins in his body on the Tree these punishments of sin Christ suffered not necessarily as we guilty sinners do from Gods formal imputation of sin but voluntarily as a Combater with Sathan without any formal guilt or desert on his part And secondly He bare our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice by procuring Reconciliation and therefore he is said in Isa 53. 10. to make himself Asham a Trespasse or Sin as the Septuagint translate it And thus you see that Christ made himself to bee sin as much as God made him to be sin namely to be a sacrifice for sin and no otherwise as I have shewed in the Dialogue in page 42. 7 The reason or the end why God made him to be sin is It is the righteousnesse of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly reconciling and justifying of the Elect. Rom. 5. 18. added in the next clause That we might be made the righteousnesse of God and this doth call to our consideration the Covenant between the Trinity for mans Redemption for the Text saith That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself vers 19. 1 Consider that Christ covenanted with his Father to combate with Sathan and at last to be made a sacrifice for sin as the meritorious cause for our reconciliation and justification And hence it follows that as soon as hee had performed the said Sin-sacrifice it is truly called His righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. and this is the true and full interpretation of the word Righteousnesse in that Text. 2 On the other hand the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father was that upon the performance of Christs sacrifice he would bee reconciled to beleeving sinners and the performance of this reconciliation on God the Fathers part is called the Righteousnesse of God in this Text and in this sense the Argument of the Apostle doth run from verse 19. to the end of this 21. vers 8 In Him that is to say in Christ for as soon as sinners are in Christ by the work of the Holy Ghost they are made partakers of Gods righteousnesse for according to his Covenant with Christ it is his righteousnesse to bee fully reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by faith by which means their fins are pardoned and so they are justified from sin or made formally righteous by this righteousnesse of God the Father And thus have I opened the true sense of this verse by which it doth appear that Mr. Nortons first comparative Argument is not framed neither to the words nor to the true sense of this verse SECT III. IN Chapter 6. I have made an examination of Mr. Nortons several expressions about Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ and I little question but what I have said in that No Scripture rightly interpreted makes our sins to be formally imputed to Christ by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds Chapter and in Chap. 13. and what I say in this 14. Chapter will satisfie the
that Gretins held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 8â— 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Convenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quâ—te contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a Doctrine out of late The imputation of our sinâ— to Châ—ist as is asserteâ— by Mr. Noâ—ton is a doctrine but of late dayes dayes though now it is grown some what 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 assirms 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 hee 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 I saiah doth tell us that hee for made or put himself to bee Asham a Guilt or a Trespasse foâ— 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 guâ—lâ—y sinner as much as evâ—r hâ—s Father diâ— 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 Ashem 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 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 sianers and so brought in or proâ—uâ—â—d 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. 449. and Frith in p. 131. 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. 8 3. 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 side thus In those carnal sacritices in the time of the Law was a signification of the flesh of Christ which hee without sin should offer for our sins 4 Marbeck in his Common places saith that Austin did well say sed nostra delict a sua delict a fecit ut suam justitiam nostram justitiam saceret that is saith hee by way of Paraphrase he was counted and deemed as a sinner because that in his unjust suffering In his Com. pl. p 1026. hee might justly save sinners that beleeve in him And saith he the most part of the learned Expositors bee of this mind and he doth not parsphrase on Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apo. Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capto Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infi In his seven Candlesticks p. 352. mities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sent and Japhet did Noabs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by Iohn Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sins And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Origen Melancthoe Bucer Calvin Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In meralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our
wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his death saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wile ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should hee not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed hee should dye but the other for whom hee dyed should not live yet though it bee not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not bee both just and merciful If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter and compare them with these words of Bernard he may see as direct an opposition as is possible Hence I conclude That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard which is neer a thousand yeers space were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons kind of imputing our sins to Christ to make him guilty of his death and sufferings and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late dayes SECT V. The second thing to bee examined in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is touching the word Righteousnesse which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument doth make to be the Righteousnesse of Christ BUt I have already shewed that this word Righteousnesse is not meant of Christs Righteousnesse but of God the Fathers Righteousnesse for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Sathans Head-plot Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Pâ—iest First to combaâ—e with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse And secondly to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation and the performance of this is called his Righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly God the Father covenanted to bee reconciled and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ and his performance of this is here called The Righteousnesse of God the Father And thirdly The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ that so they might bee the fit subjects of the said Righteousnesse 2 I grant that the righteousnesse of God may bee distinguished into many other senses as Mr. Wotton hath shewed de Reconcil pec part 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must bee considered according to the context in each place where it is used but in this place Gods reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as it is expressed in verse 19. is called the righteousnesse of God in this 21. verse because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator for the compleating of a sinners righeousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins at Ball on the Covenant p. 219. least saith he it is one part or branch of Reconciliation which is a transient act conferred in time and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified or reconciled and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man the Scripture speaketh not In these words the Reader may please to take notice that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification in the party justified or reconciled and so hee makes justification to bee the first part or branch of reconciliation as Mr. Wotton doth And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification Rom. 5. 9 10. by Christs blood for the same thing merited by Christs sacrifice These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us that Gods righteousnesse procured by the Sin sacrifice of Christ in v. 21. is the same or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19. by his not imputing sin and the performance of that reconciliation or non-imputation of sin on Gods part for the sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice is called the righteousnesse of God the Father in this 21. verse and this exposition of the righteousnesse of God any indifferent Reader may see to be cleerly meant by the context though I should say no more But I will yet further evievidence that this exposition of Gods righteousnesse is no new upstart exposition but that it hath the concurrence and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus Now resteth to see what is the righteousnesse of God and it may thus be defined It is an Absolution from sins by faith through Christ And saith he that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin Sin is a defect or falling away from the Law and Will of God And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation Wherefore when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltinesse is taken away A man is absolved from his sins Ibidem Now by these things saith he it is manifest what Absolution is It is an action of God the Father whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins that is from guiltinesse and obligation to eternal death But saith he in the second place that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert therefore it is added through Christ And saith he in the third place that wee should not bee ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applyed to every one of us it is added
by faith This definition saith he is a great help to the right understanding of justification and this righteousnesse Paul saith Is the righteousnesse of God Ibidem And saith he the Commentaries which are ascribed unto Jerom do herein very well agree They are not subject to the righteousnesse of God that is saith he the absolution of sins And lest wee should in our thoughtâ— mistake the true nature of this righteousnesse of God whereby he makes sinners that are in Christ righteous he gives this special caution to bee marked Ibidem By these things saith he let us gather that this righteousnesse of God is far distant from the righteousnesse that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other Righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their Sacrifices testifie But this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness neither ever understood they the true pacifying of God nor wherein it consisted Thus far P. Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. he had spoken of the Righteousness of God afore this in Rom. 1. 17. and in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more reading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5. 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all thesâ— places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Insti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Rom. 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbeck in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be râ—conciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his
sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods mâ—er positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteâ—eousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Aâ—tonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary
or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 1â— and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be merciful is as much as I will bee Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. Gods Attonement or Expiation and therefore this expression I will be merciful may as well bee translated I will bee pacified or I will be reconciled or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness and will remember their sins no more And saith Nâ—hemiah 9. 17. Thou art a God of pardons gracious and merciful And hence it is plain that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or a means of Gods Attonement but it is plainly a true part thereof if it bee not the whole 4 This is yet further evident because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19. 14. 19. where it is used to express Gods forgiveness by his bearing of sin away but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful or pacified or reconciled but yet in vers 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Gods repentance towards sinners by forgiving and not punishing their sin as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God Repent of the evil to thy people but the Septuagint translate it be merciful or bee pacified or bee reconciled or bee propitious to the evill of thy people alluding in this expression to Gods Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where in type God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar more at large in Reply 9. 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof Psal 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. and therefore Gods forgiveness may well be called his merciful forgiveness or his reconciled forgiveness as Mr. Ainsworth doth open Gods forgiveness in Psal 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent but a concurrent part of Gods Reconciliation or of Gods Righteousnesse for Psal 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. though the terms be divers for I demand how else are wee made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ which was to bee reconciled to beleeving sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them And thus you see that these three terms Gods merciful forgiveness and his Reconciliation and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness do all con-note the same state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof and so forgiveness is not antecedent but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin to reconcile God withal and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinners justification by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering as the procuring cause of Gods reconciliation for it is often said in the Law that God ordained the Sin-offering to Lev. 6. 30. reconcile withal as in Lev. 6. 30. 2. Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices as well as the Sin-offering to procure Gods reconciliation by not imputing sin and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Attonement as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness as in Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4 5. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. as I have shewed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Attonement called sacrifices of Righteousness but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them and that was their legal righteousness For the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh And hence the Apostle doth argue How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing sin and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness and therefore answerable to the types God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to bee our Burnt-offering our Peace-offering our Trespass-offering our Meat-offering and our Sin-offering as the perfection of all the rest For by his one offering once offered hee ended the use of all Trespass offerings and finished Sin offerings and made reconciliation for iniquity and so brought in or procured an everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9. 24. instead of their Dan. 9. 24. Ceremonial reconciliation which was their Ceremonial righteousness for Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee that is to say merciful forgiveness Dan. 9. 7 15. or reconciliation and in vers 16. O Lord according to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away But the Septuagint render it O Lord according to thy mercy let thine anger be turned away namely according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and beleeving sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness and Attonement Let thine anger bee turned away and justifie us to bee thy people by not imputing our sins to us and in this sense the penitent Publican said O Lord be merciful to me a sinner and so hee went away justified by Gods merciful attonement and forgiveness which was the very thing he prayed for 9 Sin till it
21 25 27. Numb 19. 20. And sometimes such persons are threatned with death as I noted above from Levit. 15. 31. And for fear of Gods displeasure by transgressing these positive Ordinances all Israel in general were exactly careful to observe these works of the Law called Lev. 15. 31. Sacrifices and washings were ordained for their typical justification under the first Covenant from their ceremonial sins Exod. 22. 31. the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. in relation to Heb. 8. 7. 8. for their justification when they were to come into Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or to feast on the holy flesh and for their exact care herein the whole Nation though many times there were but few that were truly godly among them were called men of holiness Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. Exod. 19. 6. and saith Ainsworth in Gen. 17. 12. By three things did Israel enter into Covenant 1. By Circumcision 2. By Baptism 3. By Sacrifice And their Levitical cleansing and worship is called the first Covenant as I have noted it also in p. 118. That had Ordinances or Justifications of divine service Heb. 9. 1 and they are called carnal justifications in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomaâ—a for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to â—ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashâ—â— of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dâ—n 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out thâ— filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hebrew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom. 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie
as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The â—ree gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justificition with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their un circumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8. though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14. there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritoriouâ— procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text
Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Mâ—ses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not for to justifie them but to describe and paint Christ unto them Mark That he makes the word Law and the righteousness thereof to relate to their Ceremonies Ibidem They go about to establish their own righteousness and are not obedient to the righteousness that commeth of God which is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve This is the coherence between the third verse and Rom. 9. 31. And from this coherence it follows in this fourth verse That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness Secondly P. Martyr on Rom. 9. 31. saith of the former interpretation thus Rom. 9. 31. In his Com. pl par 2. p. 580. Indeed I dislike it not and in his Common places he doth expound the word Law and the righteousness thereof not as Mr. Norton doth of the moral Law but of the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect chiefly to the ceremonial Law and And see Wotton de reconc peccat par l. 1. c. 19. Mr. Wotton treads in his steps and Vindiciae fidei cites several other Orthodox to that Opinion par 2. p. 160. Thirdly Grotius expounds the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. Grotius in his war and peace p 24. Rom. 3. 27. of the Law of the carnal commandement quite contrary to Mr. Nortons exposition for Mr. Norton doth expound this word Law in p. 177. and 189. of the Law of Nature given to Adam in his innocency but according to Grotius and according to â—ruth it must be expounded of the Law of Works given to the Jews for their legal justification from their ceremonial sins when they appeared in Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary for it is most evident that God made a Covenant of Works with the Jews for their outward Justification when they came into his holy Sanctuary as well as a Covenant of Grace in Christ for their moral justification in his presence both here and at the day of judgement But in time namely when the Prophets ceased the carnal Jews abused this Covenant of Works as they did the brazen Serpent by trusting to it as well for their moral as for their ceremonial justification in the sight of God And against this sort of justification by works doth the Apostle Paul disputâ— in his Epistle to the Romans and to the Galatians c. Behold say the Hebrew Doctors it is said in the Law ye shall keep my Statutes and all my Judgements and do them Our wise men have said That keeping and doing must be applied to the Statutes See Ains in Lev. 5. 15. as well as unto the Judgements c. Now the Judgements they are Commandements the reason or meaning whereof is manifest and the good that commeth by doing of them is known in this world as the forbidding to rob and to shed blood and the commandement to honor Father and Mother But the Statutes or Ordinances are commandements the reason whereof is not known c. And all the sacrifices every one generally are Statutes or Ordinances and our wise men have said that for the services of the Sacrifices the world doth continue for by doing the Statutes and the Judgements righteous men are made worthy of life in the world to come and the Law setteth the commandement of the statute first saying and yee shall keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man do he shall live in them Lev. 18. 5. By this and such like â—estimonies which might be cited from the Hebrew Doctors we may see as in a glass how the carnal Jews understood the word Law namely of all the Oeconomy of Moses but chiefly and principally of the ceremonial Statutes and Ordinances and in that respect they put their trust in their outward observation of the said Ordinances which were indeed given them for their outward justification and by this kind of righteousness Paul was made alive until God opened his eyes to see his sinful condition by the spiritual application of the Law to his conscience Phil. 3. 9. and then from the typical he saw his inward justification And secondly This is worth marking as I mentioned before that in their legal justification no actual holiness was put upon them but onely their ceremonial sins of uncleanness were purged from them and that was their justice or justification when they stood before him in his Sanctuary for it is said That the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh but that kind of sanctification was obtained by their ceremonial purifyings which did procure Gods attonement in forgiving sin and no other Sanctification was ordained for their legal Justification Natural Philosophers saith Peter Martyr cannot be perswaded that the absolution of God procured by sacrifice did make men righteous and therefore they did not call it our righteousness P. Martyr spake these words in his last explanation of Justification and therefore though his former expressions do somewhat differ it is not so much to be stood on as on what he saith here in his last meditations but you may see that Peter Martyr held according to the ceremonial types that the pacifying of God and the procuring of his attonement by the sacrifice of Christ is a sinners righteousness I say this way of justification God was pleased to ordaine by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant with Christ which was also typified by his positive Covenant of Works with the Jews 1 It was his voluntary Covenant with Christ that upon his undertaking to make his soul a sacrifice for sin he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners by not imputing their sins to them that is to say he would justifie them from their sins by his gracious forgiveness and therefore it is
the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from their subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us And that can be no other say I but a passive righteousness by Gods merciful attonement in not imputing sin as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances 3. I have already shewed and I think it needful to repeat it again First That it was Christs satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice And secondly That it was Gods Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part which was to be reconciled to sinners by not imputing their sins to them as soon as they are in Christ by faith The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christs combate with Satan performed on his part did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part and both these Righteousnesses together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost which was to proceed from the Father and the Son to convert sinners and to unite them to Christs that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousness I say this voluntary and reciprocial Covenant between the Trinity doth constitute all the causes of a sinners righteousness and in particular the Covenant on the Fathers part doth constitute the formal part of it This positive created Righteousness was unknown to natural Philosophers it is not framed from the moral Law of Nature but it is a Righteousness for sinners created on purpose by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant of the Trinity 4. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should so much plead for the moral righteousness of Christ to be the matter and the imputation of it to be the form of our righteousness seeing it did not formally constitute Adams righteousness as Mr. Norton himself doth also acknowledge in p. 261. and Mr. Burges on Justification p. 8. and indeed the reason thereof is very plain because God required that Adam should first eate of the tree of life as the meritorious cause for procuring the formality of his moral perfections and this tree had this efficacy from Gods voluntary positive Covenant with Adam As I have shewed more large already chap. 2. The Dialogue saith that sinners in themselves namely as long as they continue to be sinners which is as long as they live in this body of sin can have no other righteousness than a passive righteousness proceeding from Gods merciful attonement pardon and forgiveness But Mr. Norton in p. 231. leaves out these words in themselves and then makes a false Argument of the Dialogues sense But I dare say no judicious Christian that will but make through search into all the types of legal Justification shall find any other way of making sinners righteous but by Attonement or Reconciliation in not imputing sin Reckon up the legal terms by which Attonement is expressed and that will justifie what I say as by expiating sin not imputing sin mercifully forgiving sin purging sin purifying washing cleansing sin to the sanctifying the flesh these and such like are abundantly used in the Law but never any for making righteous by imputing moral righteousness which doubtless would have been ordained to typifie the imputation of Christs moral righteousness in the formal cause of Justification if any such thing had been intended for the only formal cause 5. It seems to me that Mr. Norton doth wilfully stumble at the stile of the Dialogue because it makes a sinners righteousness to be procured by Christs sacrifice of Attonement but any one may see that this phrase the Sacrifice of Attonement at which he stumbles is a usual Scripture phrase for the publick yearly Sin-Offering is called the Sin of Attonements Ezâ—d 30. 10. and the Ram of Attonement Numb 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by Gods voluntary Covenant to procure Gods Attonement and Justification from all their legal sins even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by Gods attonement and in relation to their typical use the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Attonement Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious formal causes for the procuring of Gods attonement for all our moral sins and so consequently for our moral justification and this is most cleer because the Apostle doth define Gods reconciliation to sinners by his not imputing their sins to them 2 Cor. 5. 19. for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner but when God doth not impute sin then there is no more jar but reconciliation with God And therefore the sin of Attonement which was offered on Reconciliation-day is called by the Septuagint the Purgation of sins because it procured Gods Attonement by which only sin is purged away Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ Heb. 1. 3. namely as it is the meritorious cause of Gods reconciliation whereby our sins are fully purged The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signifie to cover pacifie or appease noting thereby the meritorious cause Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to bee pacified doth note the formal cause It doth also signifie to satisfie or recompence noting thereby the meritorious cause 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to bee satisfied doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased satisfied or reconciled and so in Psal 85. 1 2. Lord thou hast been favourable or well-pleased with thy land Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people and covered all their sin These three several phrases are Synonimas and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation needs not now to be disputed because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward And hence it follows that Christs sacrifice may well bee caled a Sacrifice of Attonement because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Attonement and because it was ordained to procure Gods Attonement and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Attonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. not only because they were offered in faith as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness because they did legally compleat a sinners righteousness in respect of his ceremonial sins and so also they did exemplifie how a sinners righteousness should be compleated by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins sacrifices must be performed in righteousness that is to say without spot or wrinkle for then they were offered in
frames his Argument thus If not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs Redemption of us from the Curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. then the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but atypical signification But not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. Therefore the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but atypical signification The minor saith Mr. Norton is the Apostles Reply 1. Mr. Norton doth exceedingly abuse the Apostles meaning to say that his minor is the Apostles and also in saying that the Apostle doth cite Deut. 21. 23. to prove that our Redemption by Christ is both held forth and foretold there But for the better finding out of the Apostles meaning in Gal. 3. 13. There are two distinct clauses in the fomer part of the verse that are of necessity to be well marked 1 That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 That he was made a curse for us These two clauses the Dialogue hath expressed thus 1 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 When he was made a curse for us Now saith the Dialogue the Apostle cites Deut. 21. 23. only to prove the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death like unto other notorious Malefactors even at the same time when he redeemed us from the curse of the Law by making the formality of his death to bee a sacrifice by his own Priestly power 2 It is further evident that this sense is the truth by the prediction of it from the time of Adams fall in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt pierce him as a sinful Malefactor on the Tree and yet hee shall break thy Head-plot at the very same time by his The outward manner of Christs death on the Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. obedience to the death for in all his conflict with thy ignominious torturing pains on the Cross he shall not suffer his patience to bee disturbed nor his obedience to bee perverted but hee shall continue obedient to the death even the death of the Cross and in that obedience as soon as thou hast done thy worst to disturb it and as soon as hee hath finished all his sufferings hee shall make his death a sacrifice by his own Priestly power And it is recorded of him that as soon as he had but said It is finished he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost and that was the formality both of his death and sufferings And thus hee brake the Devils Head-plot had the victory and won the prize which was the redemption of all the Elect even at the same time when hee was put to death as a cursed Malefactor by the Devil in hanging on a Tree This was the declared platform of the Trinity according to their eternal Covenant for mans Redemption as I have expressed it in the Dialogue but have often in this book amplified and inlarged it 3 It is worth the marking that the Apostle doth not put the Article The to the word Curse cited from Deut. 21. 23. but only to the first word Curse as it is cited in verse 10. from Deut. 27. But in case the latter word Curse had included the moral Curse as well as the former word Curse then in reason it should have had the Article The put to it as wel as it is to the former but because it is not put to the latter therefore this may serve as another Argument to prove the Apostle meant that Christ suffered no other Curse but such a Curse as his proof meant namely a cursed death in the outward manner of it just like unto those Malefactors that were hanged on a Tree according to Deut. 21. 23. and Gen. 3. 15. And to this sense doth Chrysostom and Theephilact expound the Curse that Christ suffered cited in the former Chapter namely that he suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner for he was put to death as a sinner by the Devils imputation but not by Gods imputation if hee had suffered as a sinner from Gods immediate wrath and by Gods imputation then hee must some way or other have had communion with our guilt For saith Grotius afore cited merit is personal and therefore when the Ancient Divines say Hee suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner they mean it only in respect of the likeness of his punishments unto other cursed Malefactors which punishment an innocent person may suffer as well as a Malefactor And so Austin saith well that Christ received our punishment without sin that thereby hee might dissolve our sin and end our punishment And in relation to this sense the Dialogue doth open the Apostles words thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law even at the same time When hee was made not that Curse in verse 10. But a curse for us according to Deut. 21. 23. But saith Mr. Norton the word When is not in the Text but it is of your own putting in Reply 2. It is a usual thing with Mr. Norton to censure the Dialogue with some odious thing or other without any just cause But by his leave the Dialogue is able to justifie it self by the concurrence of good Authors for this word When. 1 Mr. Perkins doth use the word When twice over First In his translation of this Text. And secondly In his Analysis 2 Mr. Ainsworth doth render this Text thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law When hee was made a curse for us in Exod 32. 32. 3 Mr. Calvin in his citation of this Text doth put in the word When just as Mr. Ainsworth hath done in his Inst lib. 2. Chap. 16. Sect 6. 4 The Prophet Isaiah useth the word When just in this very case saying in Isa 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to Isa 53. 10. put him to grief on the Tree When hee shall make his soul a Trespass namely a Trespass or a Sin-sacrifice as the Septuagint render Asham 5 The Syriak doth translate it And or When hee was made a Curse for us Van in Syriak and Hebrew is usually put for And and yet it is sometimes also put for When and therefore Tremelius doth render it in to Latine Dum pro nobis factus est execratio and Erasmus doth translate the Greek thus Dum pro nobis which doth answer to our English word When or While 6 Tindal doth translate Gal. 3. 13. by And and not by Being 7 The Greek word in Gal. 3. 13. is often put for When by our Translators as
a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of Moses in his exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here with the like exhortations to the Judges to cleanse the land from moral defilements by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners which else would defile the whole land yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice and to tollerate moral sinners See Lev. 18 24 25 27 28. Num. 35. 31 32 33. Psal 106. 38. Ezra 9. 11. Jer. 3. 1 2 9. Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal 24. 5. c. But it came to pass that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed and then the land was cleansed for by this act of justice though he was no Magistrate yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way to execute the office of a Magistrate hee is said to make Attonement or to reconcile God to the whole land Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33 39. These and such like instances do evidence that the Judges as they were the Representatives of the whole land might defile the whole land and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners in case they did connive at them and not execute impartial justice upon them And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to bee to bury the body before Sun-set that the land bee not defiled On the contrary when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of Gods wrath and to make Attonement for the Land O that this Exhortation of Moses might fit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates both supreme and inferiour to execute impartial justice against moral sinners that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of Gods wrath and that the land by their neglect might not be defiled And O that people would rightly use their liberty when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates to chuse such as fear God and hate sin 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law I wonder The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin therefore at Mr. Nortons unadvisedness in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land in case hee was not buried before Sun-set I grant that he or any other might bee deceived in their judgement by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition as I have shewed before but the right translation as it was in the first Editions will not afford any such Tenent if the Context be well weighed 2 I grant that a great part of the people might bee ceremonially defiled yea at sometime the greatest part but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins as Ains sheweth in Num. 9. 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved which cannot be that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person or by some one act then I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land as well as for particular persons and places for doubtlesse God would not bee wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person for hee that touched a dead person though hee dyed in his bed yea though hee were truly godly in his life time was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree and he that touched any dead person in the day time was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law as hee that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sun-set and hee that touched but the limb of a dead child was as much defiled as he that touched a whole dead child all that touched the dead though never so many were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness untill they had cleamed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19. 11 15 16 c. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged to hang on the tree after Sun-set the whole land could not be defiled therby unless every person in the land did come one by one to touch his dead carkass which is absurd to think they would do and yet it must be done in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactors carkass unburied after Sun-set And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws is very short of what it ought to be or else he would never have broached this fiction 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sun-set did not defile the land ceremonially see also n. 2. for David according to the desire of the Gibeonites which was ordered doubtless according to Gods special positive direction commanded that seven of Sauls sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree and to continue hanging so long as until
God should manifest himself to be attoned and reconciled to the Land by sending rain to remove the present famine for there was a famine in the dayes of David three years together And David inquired of the Lord and the Lord answered It is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 1. therefore David said to the Gibeonites in verse 3. What shall I do for you and wherewith shall I make the Attonement that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord They answered to the King in verse 5. doubtless by some special voluntary positive command from God Let seven of his sons be delivered to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord namely to appease the Lords wrath that was so justly provoked by Sauls sin against the whole land for Saul was the Representative of the whole land and therefore he ought to have protected and not killed the innocent Gibeonites as he had done out of his furious zeal by which notorious moral sin of his he defiled the whole land But by the hanging of his seven sons on a tree for many dayes together the land was cleansed from the guilt of Sauls moral sin and not defiled ceremonially if it had been defiled ceremonially by their hanging on the tree after Sun-set then doubtless it would have been recorded in what manner the Land was cleansed again but no such cleansing is recorded therefore no such ceremonial defilement did fall upon the land by their hanging many days after sun-set I grant that this act of Justice in hanging seven of Sauls sons for his sin was done by Gods special direction and by his supreme positive command and not by the written Law of God for no personal crimes were laid to the charge of these seven sons of Saul by the Judicial Laws of Moses and therefore except some crime against the Law of Moses had been legally proved against them they could not by the justice of Moses revealed Laws have been put to death much less could they have been hanged on seven trees for their fathers sin whereof they might be innocent Conclusion 1 Hence it doth necessarily follow That God hath not revealed in the Scriptures all the rules of his Relative Justice but he The rule of Gods Relative Justice is his secret will as well as his revealed will Seâ— cha 2. at Reply to the 5. Prop and in P. Martyr on Rom. p 251. and see Rutherford on the Covenant p. 26. c doth still keep a power of Relative Justice in his own hands according to the counsel of his own Will as it is evident by this act of Gods special Justice done upon the seven sons of Saul that happily were innocent in the point of Sauls furious slaughter of the Gibeonites Goubtless God gave some special supreme voluntary positive command both to David and to the Gibeonites touching the hanging of the seven sons of Saul and after the same manner he gave a special positive command to Abraham to kill his Son for a Sacrifice or else it had been an extream wickedness and gross disobedience to Gods moral Law to kill his Son and the like wickedness it would have been in David and in the Gibeonites to hang up these seven Sons of Saul without a special positive command from God I shall not with some saith Mr. Rutherford in Christs dying p. 139. at Asser 3. affirm that which in the general is true a will contrary to Gods revealed command and will called voluntas signi which is our moral rule to oblige us is a sin but a will contrary to Gods decree called voluntas bene placiti which is not our Rule obliging except the Lord be pleased to impose it on us as a moral Law is a sin Secondly Hence it follows that the Law of burying the person hanged the same day was in relation to the ordinary course of Justice Thirdly Hence it follows that in some extraordinary cases the supreme Judges had power to increase the length of time in hanging on a tree At for example David commanded that the hands and feet of Recbab and Banab should be hanged up for many daies together now by the Levitical Law every member of a dead body did defile as much as the whole body See Ainsw in Numb 19. 11. And therefore David knew that their hanging many days on a tree would not defile the land ceremonially but that it would cleanse it from their morall defilement 2 Sam. 4. 11 12. See also our larger Annotations on ver 12. From these sundry considerations it is evident That Mr. Nortons typical sense of Dan. 21. 23 on which he doth build all his Arguments doth fail him and therefore all his Arguments do prove no better but groundless falacies or to use his own language he doth but put an abominable inference upon the Apostles and upon the Spirit of God speaking by him The sum of what I have said in the two former Sections may be drawn up into this Argument That Act of Justice which doth cleanse the Land from morall defilements cannot be said to defile the Land ceremonially But the hanging of malefactors on a tree by an act of Justice till after sun-set doth cleanse the land Therefore that act of Justice in letting such malefactors hang till after sun-set doth not defile the Land ceremonially SECT III. BUt Mr. Norton doth still labor to prove that the curse of hanging on a tree did typifie that Christ did bear the moral curse on the cross for our redemption For saith he in p. 95. There were malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law of Deut. 21. 23. Yet we read not that they were accursed during the space between the giving of this Law and the passion of Christ a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed In Judea no person how great a malefactor soever if not hanged was thus accursed The person hanged was equally accursed whether he was hanged alive or dead whether he was hanged after this manner or after that Jewish or Roman whether his crime were more hainous or not so hainous yea for ought appeareth though he were innocent yet if hanged judicially he was accursed since the passion of Christ hanging in Judea is not ceremonially accursed Reply 8. Some of these unsound notions I find in Weams third Volume on Dan. 21. and also in his four Degenerations 327. where he pleads to little purpose for the typical sense as Mr. Norton doth But from all Mr. Nortons imaginary notions heaped up together what is the inference but this That the curse in Deut. 21. 23. did typifie that Christ was to redeem us from the curse of the Law by bearing the moral curse in our stead on the cross But I have sufficiently shewed already that this inference is builded but upon false premises and therefore all the Arguments used to prove it do vanish to nothing Secondly But if his inference had been no more but this
manifest that he was to be troubled Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not subject to death as â—câ—s is In his War Peace ch 36. anâ— I have cited Mr. â—â—all 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 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 bondslaveâ— of Satan Death is their Birth-right and therefore they abhorre it not in a regular manner but with a dull slavish spirit but because Christs nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin therefore he was not born the bondslave of death Death hath no right saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121. where there is no sin unless we will say that God doth punish the innocent and hence it follows that the pure constitution of his nature must needs be toubled with the regular fear of his bodily death more than other men can be His death saith Grotius was not determined by any Law as Mr. Norton affirms but by agreement and as it were by special Covenant made with his Father who upon that condition promised him not onely the highest glory but a seed to serve him for ever This speech of Grotius is worth our marking And in ch 2. I have shewed more at large that the death of Christ was a death of Covenant and noâ— oâ— condition of nature as ours is And in relation to his Covenant and to the rich reward of his death by Gods Covenant his rational soul did always desire to die but yet that desire did no way hinder his natural and vital soul from fearing the ill usage of his pure nature by Satan and hiâ— instruments Secondly I find this to be a received maxim among the learned that the bodily pains which Christ indurâ—d were See Mr. Burges on Just p 82 Dr. Wilâ—iams in his seven Golden Candlestick p 453. more sensible to his nature than the like pains can be to other men because of the most excellent temper and tender Constitution of his body and therefore his vital and sensitive soul which is the bond of union between the immortal soul and the body was quicker in operation than other mens spirits can be with the dread and fear of his ignominious death That speech of our Saviour is emphatical in Heb. 10. 5. A Heb. 10. 5. The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of fear thame and pain than other men can be body hast thou prepared me namely by sending the Holy Ghost to prepare the seed of the woman for my humane nature that it may be of a more excellent temper and tender constitution than any other mans can be and therefore that it may be touched with the objects of fear ignominy and pain more eminently than other mens can be and therefore as it behoved God to prepare such a body on purpose for him so it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to be touched in an eminent manner with the sence of our passions and infirmities that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest and so in particular he must be eminently touched with the fears of death Heb. 2. 14. 17. And so it became God the Father to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through sufferings and how else did it become God to consecrate him but by making his obedience perfect through sufferings and therefore said Christ to God A body hast thou prepared me thou hast moulded it and organized it on purpose to be touched with thâ— tender sense and feeling of mans infirmities in my sensitive soul the better to exemplifie the perfection of my patience and obedience through all my sufferings It is no marvel then that seeing the constitution of his body and spirits was thus transcendently tender that his soul-troubles are expressed by all the Evangelists to be more than other mens can be as concerning their meer bodily sufferings and death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with natural death conflict also often with eternal death Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death how then do you say without any distinction that he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Reply 4. I reply to the Interrogation that Christs troubled fear of death was wholly Regular but other mens fear is for Christ feared his ignominionâ— death after the rule of fear not after the example of this oâ— that man the most part irregular Christs fear therefore must not bee compared to this or that particular mans fear as Mr. Nortons kind of arguing doth import to the lesse wary Reader but his fear must be considered in relation to that disease of evil which was opposite to the perfection of his nature for by the rule of Gods Creation Adam and Christ were perfect in nature and not subject to curses and therefore according to the Rule of Contraries the more ignominy and pains of death they must suffer the more they must abhor it more than other men that are the slaves of death by nature the soul and body in the first creation were united in all perfection after Gods Image and therefore all ignominy torments and death must needs be an abhorring in an higher degree than it can be to other men and therefore it was most suitable to Christs regular constitution to manifest his exceeding troubled fear of his ignominious and painful lingring death more than any other man can do in a regular manner But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death and he doth very often charge the Dialogue with this expression of a natural death as in page 156 158 159 164 c. Reply 5. This I beleeve is a false charge I do not remember Christs death was not a natural death that the Dialogue doth any where call the death of Christ a natural death but it doth carefully shun that term as altogether unfit because the death of Christ was supernatural The Dialogue holds that Christ was not subject to a natural death as sinners are from the curse of original sin in Gen. 3. 19 as I have shewed a little before and shall do it again towards the end of this Chapter Secondly But yet the Dialogue doth often call the death of Christ
that from the pitching of the field of old Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him as for the assaults of hell that he saw inlarged against him that he was so full of sorrow and anguish This testimony to the truth of Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides saith thus on the word Alwaies in Act. 2. 25. Always saith he even in his forest agonies 1 Before the sweaty Agony his soul was troubled yet then he called God Father Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith he knew God heard him alwaies and therefore even then he must needs have comfort 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow yet then he could still call God Father Matth. 26. 37 38 39 42. 4 When the betrayer was come and the Band had seized on him yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou said he to Peter that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall set before mee more than twelve legions of Angels 5 When he was upon the cross and cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Doth not the very fore-front of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God Mat. â—7 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father as we see and knew his father heard him ever then surely he had comfort in his Father ever yea if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name when ever he did mention the name else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christs mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God when he began to be amazed and to be very heavy as Mr. Norton doth affirm SECT 5. Christs Agony and Luk. 22. 44. Examined MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed saith the Dialogue it will appear that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath but from his natural fear of death onely because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure as the Prophets did foretel Add to these pains of his mind his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death for a time and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer until he had overcome it Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Reply 19. I have already replyed to this very answer in substance in the first Section of this Chapter But yet I reply further with the Dialogue That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature together with our true natural but yet sinless infirmities Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions he could not chuse but abhor death more than any sinful man and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem but at his last Supper and in the Garden when his death was nigh at hand he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it first to his Disciples and then to God in his prayers Matth. 26. 37 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him to condemn him and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross as a sinful malefactor I say the consideration of this usage could not chuse but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ than the like can do to us because of the pure constitution of his nature as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation as the pure nature of Christ might do and did and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours But saith he Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death which is denied But in case such a Tenent were iâ—deed held forth in the book of God then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon iâ— seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction but the contrary is evident to me namely that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan and upon his sacrifice as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Savior fell into such an Agony the night before his death seeing it was not an easie thing to alter the property of nature from a desire to live to a desire to die and that not for his own end and benefit but for the sake of the Elect onely and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will he must observe the due time of every action and so on as it follows in Mr. Nortons citation in page 64 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his natural death only is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
the second Adam and publick head of his Elect Church as Mr. Ruthersurd on the Covenant page 312. hath rightly expounded the word Seed in Gal. 3. 16. and his reasons there alleged may serve to prove the like sense of the word Seed in Gen. 3. 15. Moreover God told the Devil that hee might look to himself as well as hee could that this seed of the deceived woman should by his perfect obedience to the Laws of the Combate conquer him in all his designs and at last make his soul a most perfect obedient sacrifice by which perfection of his obedience both in his Combate and Sacrifice he should break in peeces his first grand Head-plot for his first grand Head-plot was to intice Adam to eat the forbidden fruit contrary to Gods voluntary positive prohibition and thereby to inwrap him and all his natural posterity into the same spiritual death of original sin But yet for all this God told the Devil that hee would raise up a seed from this deceived sinful woman that should conquer him by his most perfect and exact obedience to another voluntary positive Law that should be more hard and difficult to be performed than Adams was by infinite degrees and that was first to enter the Lists with Satan and his instruments and not to bee disturbed in his patience but to observe the laws of the Combate in all obedience and at last when the Devil had done his worst he should then make his vital soul a sacrifice in breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power and all this is comprehended in this sentence Hee shall break thy head and by this speech God did fully forewarn the Devil that he might use his best skill without any restraint to do what he could to disturb the patience of this seed of the woman either by his sinful imputations or by his ignominious usage or by his cruel tortures and so might do his utmost to interrupt his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and that so by this means he might save his Head-plot from being broken and accordingly the Devil did often stir up his Arch-instruments to disturb his patience but especially when he entred into Judas to fetch a band of armed men with swords and staves to apprehend him as a notorious Malefactor and stirred up the Scribes to accuse him as a most sinful Malefactor worse than the murtherer Barabas and he stirred up Herod and his Souldiers to mock him and Pilate to condemn him to the most shameful cursed death of the Cross and all this evil usage is included in this sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And in this Combate this is chiefly to be marked That the Devil did use all the foulest play that hee could devise to disturb the patience of this Seed of the woman that was compassed about with our true natural affections and passions and with a tender sense of every evil for the Devil knew that if he could by all his foul play but once have disturbed his patience that then he had perverted him in the course of his obedience and then hee knew that hee should have spoyled his death from being a sacrifice and then he knew that hee should have preserved his first grand Head-plot from being broken and then the Devil would have triumphed over Christ upon the Cross and over all mankind as he did when he first brought Adam to disobey Gods positive prohibition in eating the forbidden fruit 2 God was pleased further to declare That it was the plot of the Trinity that the second person should take unto him the seed of the deceived sinful woman and that he should enter the Lists with his enemy Satan in that nature as it was accompanied with true natural passions and not in the power of his divine nature and therefore it was of necessity that he must manifest the truth of his humane nature by his true natural affections and passions in fearing and sorrowing and abhorring his vilde ignominious usage by his Combater Satan and if it be marked Christ doth as much complain of his shameful usage as of his painful usage and that he saith in Psal 69. 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and yet still that notwithstanding all Satans vilde usage hee should continue obedient to the very last even to the most shameful death of the Cross and that hee should then make his vital soul a sacrifice of Redemption and Reconciliation for all the Elect. And thus as by the demerit of Adams disobedience to a meer positive Law The Many even the Elect as wel as the Reprobate were made sinners so by the merit of the obedience of the second Adam to Gods meer positive Law in his combate with Satan and in his death and sacrifice The Many are made righteous Rom. 5. 18 19. that is to say Rom 5. 18 19. They are justified from the condemning power of sin by Gods Reconciliation for the sake of Christs obedience in his combate of sufferings and in his death and sacrifice And indeed how else could his humane nature be better proved and exemplified than by his fear and heaviness at the nigh approach of his ignominious and must cruel unnatural death and how else could his obedience be better proved and exemplified to be most perfect than by his most perfect patience under such an ignominious and cruel usage and therefore by his constancy in his patience and obedience through the whole combate with Satan he got the victory over Satan and won the prize that was set before him by the Masters of the combate Phil. 2. 8 9. and this God declared first in Gen. 3. 15. He shall break thy head-plot In these words God declared that the Phil. 2. 8 9. Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 2. 10. All Christs greatest sufferings were by Gods appointment to bee from his combater Satan as in Reply 12. and 6. seed of the woman should be a victorious combater and conqueror of his enemy Satan by his patience and obedience through the whole combate And that Christs sufferings are set out by his combater Satan it is the Scripture phrase and language by which Christs sufferings and his victory is described and deciphered as it is evident by Gen. 3. 15. and so in like sort by Heb. 2. 10. he is there called the Captain of out salvation and it is there said that it became God to consecrate him or to make him perfect as he is our Captain in the combate through his victorious sufferings from his combater Satan and see also Exod. 32. 29. And Christ is called our Captain because all good Christians are called his Souldiers 2 Tim. 2. 3 4. And therefore in Col. 2. 15. Christ is said to have spoiled Principalities and powers and as a conqueror to make a shew of them openly Col 2. 15. and to triumph over them in it namely in his patient and obedient death on the cross and he is
own Son but delivered him up for us all Hence Mr. Norton infers in page 122. That Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God saith he spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8. 32. Rom. 8. 32. To this interpretation I Reply That Gods not sparing his Son but delivering him up for us all must not bee understood of Gods delivering him up to his own immediate wrath as Mr. Nortons sense doth carry it But of Gods delivering him up to his Combater Satan that so Satan might have his full liberty to do his worst unto him to provoke his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience by his ignominious and cruel usage that so he might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and that so hee might hinder him from breaking his first grand Head-plot In this sense God spared not his Son but gave him up for us all and in this sense God gave Satan liberty to use Pilate as his instrument to make Christ bear our sins in his body on the Tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. And therefore Christ said unto Pilate Thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above Joh. 19. 11. For God gave Satan leave to do his worst against Christ by all the wicked instruments he thought fit to imploy And Mr. Nortons sense that God delivered up Christ to be tormented by his own immediate wrath is confounded also by Peters exposition in Act. 2. 23 24. The fourth Scripture to bee examined is Act. 2. 23 24. and Act. 4. 27 28. Him being delivered saith Peter by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God Yee the Devils Arch-instruments have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death Hence it is questioned what pains of death they were that God did loose The Answer is Not pains of the second death as some do most unadvisedly expound it But those pains of death Which Yee by wicked hands have made by crucifying and staying his body on the Tree These are the pains of death that were made by the wicked hands of his Crucifiers and these pains of death were they that God loosed and healed at his Resurrection And these wicked hands are thus described in Isa 53. 8 9. Hee was taken away by distress or restraint and by judgement Isa 53. 8 9. and who shall declare his Generation Namely Who shall bee able to declare the extreme wickedness of that Satanical generation by whose wicked hands hee was taken away as a wicked Malefactor and restrained of his wonted liberty and brought as a Malefactor before the judgement-seat of the High-priest and of Pilate and of Herod and again before the judgement-seat of Pilate where hee was sentenced to be crucified First Some I conceive understand this Interrogation of his God-head Who shall declare the Generation of his Godhead Secondly Others understand it of the Generation of his elect number Thirdly But I beleeve it must bee understood of his wicked Satanical Generation for John Baptist did call them A generation of Vipers Mat. 3. And Christ did call them A wicked and adulterous Generation in Mat. 12. 34 39. And so Dr. De Boate doth expound Isa 53. 8. And so Dr. Hammon doth expound Act. 8. 33. And History doth report That at this time the Priests and Scribes were exceedingly addicted to converse familiarly with the Devil And then it follows in verse 8. For be was cut off out of the land of the living which is thus expounded in Act. 8. 33. His life was taken from the earth And just according to this phrase Daniel saith That after sixty two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off that is to say Hee shall bee executed by the Devils Instruments for a wicked Malefactor Den. 9. 26. But not for himself saith Daniel that is to say Not for his own sinful nature nor for his sinful life And to these two Scriptures do the words of Christ allude when hee said to his Disciples at his last Supper The Prince of this world cometh with a band of armed souldiers to apprehend mee for a Malefactor but he hath nothing in me Joh. 14. 30. no original corruption nor no actual transgression against the laws of the Joh. 14. 30. Combate Why then was he taken by wicked hands God doth answer by Isa 53. 8. For the transgression of my people was hee stricken wounded and bruised on the Cross God would have his obedience declared to be perfected by this means before he would accept his death as a sacrifice of Satisfaction and Reconciliation for the transgression of his people and then it follows in verse 9. That he made his grave with the wicked This Mark expounds thus Hee was numbred with the wicked Mar. 15. 28. and with the rich in his death for he was buried in rich Iosephs Sepulchre These Scriptures thus expounded and many such like which might be alleged must have the same sense namely according to Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. which will eminently shew how God is said to do all the afflictions of Christ namely not from his immediate wrath but because according to the voluntary Covenant and Council of the blessed Trinity he proclaimed a combate of enmity between Satan the arch enemy of mankind and the seed of the deceived woman And secondly Because he gave the Devil a commission to do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience 3 God may be said to do all the soul-sufferings of Christ because he appointed him to take on him the seed of the woman and mans true natural affections and passions and so to be inwardly touched with the sence of Satans ignominious and unnatural usage and to manifest it to his Disciples in a high degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution of his nature above ours and his obedience thereto caused his inward agony in the Garden 4 It is further evident that God would have Christs soul to be affected with a deep degree of the dread of his ignominious and unnatural usage by Satan even to an eminent Agony because he appointed him to enter the Lists and to combate Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature but in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities dreading an ignominious death with Satan in his true humane nature as it was accompanied with his true natural infirmities of fear c. and not as it was sometimes accompanied with the power of his Godhead For by Gods declared will Christ might not take his utmost advantage against Satan by arming his humane nature with the assistance of twelve Legions of Angel neither might he put forth his omnipotent and absolute power to destroy or annihilate Satan neither might he shut up Satan in his everlasting prison to hinder him from his encounter for if
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 prevalle 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 and all his Instruments by his righteousness in managing the combate according to the just laws of the combate for the Devil could not by all his stratagems prevail to make him a Transgressor and therefore he could not prevail to put him to death formally by forcing his vital soul out of his body by all his torments and this is evident because Gods Justice had not ordained any thing else but sin onely to be the sting of death and therefore unless Satan could have so far prevailed as to make him a guilty sinner he could not sting him to death formally but himself was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and therefore when he was in strength of nature he did but say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and then at that instant he gave up the Ghost and that last act being done according to Covenant gave the formality 1. To his Obedience 2. To his Death 3. To his Sacrifice And 4. To the full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans redemption And thus the seed of the woman conquered Satan broke his first grand Head-plot by his weapon of righteousness and won the prize 5 This is no new upstart doctrine that Christ conquered Satan by righteousness in observing the Laws of the combate and by entering the Lists with the infirmities of his humane nature which was most eminently shewed both in his internal and external agony but this doctrine hath been taught by the antient Divines for 1 Christ was made man saith Damasen that so that which Ortho Fidei l. 3. c. 18. was conquered might conquer God was not unable saith he by his mighty force and power to take man from the Tyrant but then that would have been a cause of complaint to the Tyrant that had conquered man if he had been forced by the power of God therefore God who pittied and loved us willing to make man that was fallen the conqueror of Satan became man restoring the like by the like 2 Gregory saith When Satan took Christs body to In mora ium l 3. c. 11. crucifie it hee lost Christs Elect from the right of his power Ibidem From Gods speech to Satan concerning Iob He is in thy band but save his life he doth thus declare Gods commission to Satan touching Christ Take thou power against his body and loose the right of thy dominion over his Elect 3 Saith Ireneus Christ coupled and united man to God for Iren l. 3. c. 20. if man had not vanquished the enemy of man the enemy had not been justly vanquished 4 Leo saith If the God-head onely should have opposed it De passe Dom. Ser. 5. j self for sinners not so much reason as power should have conquered the Devil Ibidem The son of God therefore admitted wicked hands to be laid upon him and what the rage of persecutors offered he with patient power suffered This saith he was the great mystery of godliness that Christ was even loaden with injuries which if he should have repelled with open power he should have onely exercised his divine strength but not regarded our cause that were men for in all things which the madness of the people and Priests did reproachfully unto him our sins were wiped away and our offences purged as Isa 53. 5. The Devil himself saith he did not understand that his cruelty against Christ should overthrow his Kingdom He should not saith he have lost the right of his fraud if he could but have abstained from the Lords blood but greedy with malice to hurt whiles he rusheth on Christ himself falleth whilst he taketh he is taken and pursuing him that was mortal he lighted on the Saviour of the world And saith he in Ser. 10. Jesus Christ being lifted on the tree returned death on the Author of death Heb. 2 14. and strangled all the principalities and powers that were against him by objecting his flesh that was passable and giving place in himself to the presumption of our antient enemy who raging against mans nature that was subject unto him durst there exact his debt where he could find no a sign of sin therefore the These letters a b c d. do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds general and mortal hand-writing by which we were sold was torn and the contract of our captivity came into the power of the redeemer And saith he in Serm. 12. To destroy the Kingdom of the Devil he rather used the righteousness of Reason than the power of his Might for whilst the Devil raged on him whom he held by no b Law of sin he lost the right of his wicked dominion Hence I infer If the Devil did afflict him by no Law of sin then he was not a sinner by Gods legal imputation 5. Theoderet saith Because thou who receivedst power against De Providen Ser. 10. sinners hast touched my body that am c guilty of no sin forfeit thy power and cease thy Tyranny I will free mine from death not using simply the power of a Lord but a righteous power I have paid the debt of mankind owing no death I have suffered death and not subject to death and did admit death no way d guilty I was reckoned with the guilty and being free from debt I was numbered among the debtors sustaining therefore an unjust death I dissolve the death that is deserved and imprisoned wrongfully I free them from prison that were justly detained Ibidem saith he Let no man think that herein we dally for by the sacred Gospels and Doctrines of the Apostles we are taught that these things are so And saith Leo de passi Dom. Ser. 17. He that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
namely into Gods gracious favour again as Adam was in his innocency And saith Baxter to Molivaeus p. 181. It is the same act of God that is called constitutive justification and pardon of sin so far as Justification is taken as comprehending onely the restoring of us to the happiness that we fell from But this I perceive is a Riddle to Mr. Norton for in p. 209. he saith to be sinless is not enough to make a sinner righteous but if he will but search better into the Ceremonial Types he may see that it is Gods forgiveness from his attonement procured by legal washings and by the blood of beasts by which all Israel were sanctified or made a holy people again as the legal Heb. 9 13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long disâ—curse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge with the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sinâ— Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansing and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctifie them or make them holy from the defilement of all their legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if the bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers tâ—at could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that
it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods Reconciliation or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation doth make a beleeving sinner not onely without blemish and spotless but holy also And so the word sanctifie and cleanse in Ephes 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy and without blemish in the same verse Sixthly I pray note this also That the holiness of Christs person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness as it is affirmed by some unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christs Righteousness formally saith he is incommunicable to any other our union with Christ saith he makes us not the same person with him to be the same subject of the same accident Righteousness This Section I have added onely by way of Parenthesi Seventhly Seeing it is acknowledged that perfection doth consist in action and seeing it is also acknowledged that the perfection of all Christs obedience was to be evidenced not onely by his perfect patience in all his sufferings from his Combater Satan but especially in the formality of his death and sacrifice why should it not be formally done by his own priestly action And why then doth Mr. Norton detract so much from the perfection of his Priestly action in the formality of his death and sacrifice by ascribing the formality of it to physical causes onely as his words repeated a little before do testifie But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death than what is inflicted justly for sin c. Reply 28. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should detract so much from the perfection of Christs Priestly action in making his death to be a sacrifice as to make it to be nothing else but a co-acted death according to Gods sentence denounced on fallen Adam as the punishment of his original sin in Gen. 3. 19. For as Lupset saith well In our death the body doth in a manner leave the soul before the soul leaveth the body For saith he it is the body by it self forsaking life that causeth the soul to depart Hence I infer What perfection of Christs Priestly active obedience can there be in such a kind of forced death as this is But on the other hand look upon the death of Christ as it was to be made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power and then we may see it to be a death of Covenant onely and so consequently to be an active mediatorial death and sacrifice because hee must bee our Mediator in his death But in Reply 16. I have spoken more fully to this objection Therefore for a conclusion I will yet once more distinguish upon the death of Christ 1 The long action of his bloody combate with Satan and his Instruments gave the name to his being killed and slain 2 His last short act in breathing our sending out or puting out his immortal spirit when he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit gave the name of formality to his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power When Christ said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. he did not breath out his soul through the decay of his natural spirits as the Saints do when they say the same words as in Psal 31. 5. Nor as Stephen did when he said Lord Jesus receive Psa 31. 5. my spirit Act. 7. 59. For their death is co-acted by Gods Justice on original sin Gen. 3. 19. But Christ made it evident that his death was not co-acted by weakness of Nature by his crying out with a loud voyce when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that instant gave up the Ghost by which loud out-cry he made it evident that he was in full strength of nature when he died as it is noted before by Mr. White of Dorchester and by Mr. Trap and others and this last act gave the formality 1 To his Obedience 2 To his Death and Sacrifice 3 To the price of full satisfaction For as I have formerly shewed from Exod. 30. 12. It was Gods voluntary Covenant that Exod. 30. 12 15 16. The death of Christ as it was made a sacrifice of reconciliation by the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity was the full price of mans redemption made the half shekels to be the full price for the redemption of the lives of the Israelites and this price was imployed or part of it at least to buy publick Sacrifices which were ordained to make an Attonement for their lives as I have opened it in the Dialogue p. 86. namely this price was accounted by God to be in the place and in the stead of their lives as vers 15 and 16. doth declare And thus their lives were redeemed with a price and yet materially it was not the full price of their lives but formally it was the full price of their lives by vertue of Gods free Covenant In like sort Gods voluntary Covenant and Decree made the obedience of Christ in his Combate of sufferings and in the formality of his death and sacrifice to be the full price of the redemption of all the elect Israel of God namely in their place and stead But saith Mr. Norton in page 143. No â—ice can dispence in case of the Antitype Reply 29. And why not Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth The Lord in mercy open his eyes and all our eyes to see better into the force of Gods voluntary Covenant for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant that doth make any thing to bee a full formal price in his own sight and on the contrary that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes can be made a ful price formally in his esteem without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant doth concur thereto Conclusions from my several Replyes to the said third Question 1 Hence it follows That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of
Epist 10 Whitgensteniâ—â— unto Christs active obedience or to his native holinesse do thereby derogate from the death of Christ and do undoubtedly make it vain or superfluous Pareus doth often use this Argument and Mr. Gataker doth as often approve it not only in his disputation with Gomarus but also in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication in p. 13. 91. 10â— 136. and when he had repeated Pareus his words in p. 13. he speaks thus to Mr. Walker Now would I gladly understand from Mr. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus whether he count not him a blasphemous Heretick as well as Mr. Wotton The same question do I propound to Mr. Norton together with that crosse interrogatory that Mr. Gatakar propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith That the Law which Christ In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51 Psal 40. 8. saith was in his heart or bowels Psal 40. 8. was that special Law which lay upon him as he was the second Adam namely it was a positive Law like that which was given to the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mediator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten Commandements to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship just as the Dialogue doth and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith that Christs obedience in laying down his life was in obedience to a positive Law and not to the moral Law as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds the one they call Justiâ—â—â—a personâ— the righteousnesse of his person the other Justiâ—ia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines 〈◊〉 perâ—ene but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justiâ—ia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Pâ—ideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personâ— they place in Causa sine qua non 6 Saith Mr. Baxter many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God are of this judgement In his Pes of Just p. 53. and there he names many and saith he in his late Apologie to Mr. Blake p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of speciall use c. SECT 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice and was Legal obedience And in the same page he makes the Incarnation of Christ also to be legal obedience Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds That God had ordained Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not moral obedience but Madiatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship no other way to take satisfaction but first by our Saviours performing of legal obedience for us and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments for this way only he calls The way of Justice But in the former Section I have shewed that sundry orthodox whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd and yet they deny that Christs obedience in his death was legal obedience contrary to Mr. Norton 2 I will adde Mr. Ball to them for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience The Law saith he did not require that God should dye nor that any should dye that had not sinned nor such a death and of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam lost And saith Mr. Ball Christ upon the Crosse prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant p. 259. that crucified him Luke 23. 34. But saith he that might be of private duty as man who subjected himself to the Law of God which requires that we forgive our enemies and pray for them that pâ—rsecâ—te us not of the proper office of a Mediator which was to offer up himself a sacrifice who was to interecede for his people by suffering death It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law to fulfill all Righteousnesse and to pray for his enemies but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator Hence the Reader may observe that Mr. Ball makes Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee out of private duty as a man and not ex officio out of the proper office of a Mediator as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life and therefore had power to lay it down and take it up And this power he had though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law but by vertue of a particular Command Constitution and Designation to that service of laying down his life This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter The Law of the Creature and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different The will of his Father which hee came to do consisted in many things which were never required of us And such saith he are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad upon Gomarus doth thus Upon Gomarus p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will By which Will wee are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that were requisite for the Expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed
with Adam in the first Covenant In Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and Chap. 6. c. 2 I say also that his minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the execution of the essential Curse without the violation of his Justice What was sometimes spoken saith he of the Laws of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not Reply 6. 1 Take the death threatned for a spiritual death in sin and then we see by experience that it was formally executed on all mankind from that instant to every one that hath life in the womb even to the end of world though yet it hath pleased God to mitigate the violent outrage of that death not onely to the Elect but also to the Reprobate while they live in this world 2 Take the death there threatned for bodily death and then we see by experience that it was not formally executed at that present neither shall it bee formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement We shall not all dye saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell and then we also see by experience that it was not formally executed God doth often dispence with hâ—s peremptory threatnings on Adam but this is certain that what God hath threatned against man for sin he may justly inflict but he is not alwayes bound to it except his threatnings be delivered with an oath Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin but not what shall infallibly be inflicted as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience that God did often repent of his Threatnings and thereupon did alter them from what hee had expressed in his revealed will but not from what he had decreed in his secret will As for example God sent his Prophet Isaiab to Hezekiah saying Set thy house in order for to dye thou shalt dye and not live This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is delivered first Affirmatively to dye Thou shalt dye that is Thou shalt 2 King 20. 1â— surely dye And secondly It is delivered Negatively Thou shalt not live And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threatning was alterable and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer that God would spare his life and give him a son to sit upon his Throne and God heard his prayer and altered his threatning and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will and for the removal of threatned evils 2 King 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations for our prayers Gen. 19. 21. Job 3. 10. Es 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the childs life after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee willeth not only to prove us Mat. 15. 23 24 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb 14 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death yet the Apostle saith also That we shall not all dye 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God we see doth often alter his peremptory threatnings 2 Take another Instance God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying Thou art but a dead man that is saith Ainsworth Thou shalt sarely dye This threatning saith Traheron on Rev. 4 seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning as that to Adam and yet indeed saith he it had a secret condition which is after expressed in verse 7 Restore her now to her husband if thou restore her not see the condition now expressed which at first was reserved know thou shalt surely dye But take notice of this that when God told Adam If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge thou shalt surely dye there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sentence of death in sin for till Christ was revealed no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatning neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings except they bee delivered with an oath God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters when they have threatned a child or servant that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished yet when the fault is committed they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves or the party offending or to both than if the punishment had been inflicted then who can deny that liberty to God himself who is a most absolute Supreme 3 Take another Instance Jonah said Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traberon not declaring Gods secret determination what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning 4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse when they desile my Tabernacle that is among them This threatning God did sometimes execute and sometimes he did not execute it but did alter it at his pleasure as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the dayes of Hezekiab 2 Chron. 30. 19 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19 20. of them were sick and weak and dyed and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiab were healed and restored to health And so death is threatned in Num 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dye yet God dispenced with death to King Vzziah and smote him with leprosie and Saul dyed not though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing But I intreat the judicious Reader to take notice that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption where he affirms That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse but that it must be born either by Adam or else by Adams Surety In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase In dying Thou shalt dye is alterable even to men that are not in Christ upon their temporary repentance as in Niniveh and Abab SECT V. But saith Mr. Norton This threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law for be makes Adams sin in eating the
righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplisiâ— our moral righteousness Conclusion Gods Attonement or Reconciliation hath these two parts 1 His not imputing sin 2 His receiving into favour or both these may bee joyned into one namely Gods gracious pardon and all this is the effect of Christs sacrifice for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a beleeving sinner that is in Christ from the guilt of all his sins and so receives him into favour by adoption or thus Gods Attonement for the sake of Christs Sacrifice is not a bare legal forgiveness as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is a gracious acquital as when a Father forgives his Son and receives him into favour And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logick and his own conscience for hee knows that in his antecedent this phrase By Christs Sacrifice of Attonement is meant both of the cause and effect Christs sacrifice being the cause and Gods attonement the effect and therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ is all along so plainly intended by the Dialogue to be the only meriting cause of the formal namely of Gods attonement for a sinners righteousness or justification It follows that the consequence which Mr. Norton draws from it viz. neither then can attonement bee a sinners righteousness is a senseless non sequitur And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whother Mr. Norton had any just cause to thunder out such reproachful censures against this kind of attonement in the Dialogue as he hath done in page 210 223 224 237. and saith hee in page 228. the attonement of the Dialogue is not Gods attonement but a pestilent fiction and abomination My heart trembles at this high blasphemy the Lord in mercy open his eyes to see better And saith Mr. Norton in page 210. Tâ—e Reader is desired to take full notice of the Dialogues corrupt sense being the Helena c. Reply 8. The Reader is also desired to examine throughly who hath the truth on his side and also to take full notice whether he can find such an active moral righteousness imputed as Mr. Norton doth substitute in page 210. for the formal cause of a sinners righteousness I have made search into the method of righteous-making by the typical sacrifices and cannot find any such righteous-making as Mr. Norton holds examine therefore whether I have not both in the Dialogue and in this Chapter rightly opened the types thereof both in the meritorious and formal causes But saith Mr. Norton page 209. The Hebrew translated Attonement properly signifieth to cover some thing yet not with a garment or the like which may bee taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as Pitch Lime Morter c. Reply 9. This exposition of the word Attonement may I conceive mis-lead the Reader as well as himself because hee restrains it to Pitch or such like tenacious matter that cannot be taken off again and therefore I will open the use of the word for the advantage of the Readers 1 I find by Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek-Lexicon That the Hebrew Caphar doth signifie to cover This is the general sense of the word But what kind of covering is to bee understood by the word must bee fetched from the circumstances of each particular text where it is used As for example in Gen. 6. 14. it is used for such a covering as is made with Bitumen Pitch Tar Rosin and such like cleaving things because that kind of covering was onely fit to stop and cover the chinks and cracks that were in the Ark to preserve it from perishing in the waters a figure of Gods Attonement in our Baptism that covereth our sins and so saveth us but saith Ainsworth in Gen. 6. 14. there are two other Hebrew words in Exod. 2. 3. which are the proper words for Pitch and Plaister and therefore Caphar is used for Pitch in Gen. 6. 14. but in a metaphorical sense and in that respect Tindal in 1 Joh. 2. 2. doth apply it and that most fitly to mollifying Plaisters that are laid on angry fores to molifie and asswage their angry pain 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost in Exâ— 16. â—4 because the Manna did lye upon or cover the ground after the dew was exhaled just like as the Hoar-frost doth cover the ground It is also put for the Hoar-frost in Job 38. 29. and in Psal 147. 16. but there the Septuagint do translate it Clouds and indeed it is not unfit because Clouds do cover the face of the Skie and do also scatter the Hoar-frost Hail and Snow which do often cover the face of the earth but these kind of coverings are soon taken off again therefore it doth not alwayes signifie such a covering as may not be taken off again and it is applied to Cypress trees because it is a pleasant shady cover against the scorching Sun Cant. 1. 13. 3 Caphar is applied to the covering of an angry countenance by some acceptable present And thus Jacob did cover Ejaâ—'s angry face I will said Jacob cover or appease his face with the present that gâ—eth before me and afterward I will see his face Gen. 32. 20. And in this sense a wise man will cover the Kings angry face Prov. 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe because a Bribe doth cover the eyes of the Judge and causeth him to pervert Justice Amos Exod. 30. 12. A further description of Gods Attonement in respect both of the meritorious formal causeâ— 5. 12. but said just Samuel to the people Of whose hand have I received any present namely by way of a Bribe to cover mine eyes therewith in the case of Justice 1 Sam. 12. 3. 5 Caphar is put for a price of Redemption because it doth cover the offended face of the Supreme and reconcile him Esa 43. 3. But jealousie saith Prov. 6. 35. is outragious it will not regard the presence of any cover or ransom See also in Numb 35. 31. and Psal 41. 81. and in Exod. 21. 30. and in Exod. 30. 12. They shall give every man the ransom of his soul or the cover of his soul namely half a shekel for every man to cover Gods angry face that there be no plague among them to take away their lives as he had done from the former Six hundred thousand But mark this price which God appointed them to give for the That onely is the full and formal price of our redemption that was constituted so to be by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant ransom or cover of their souls from death which else