but first eaten of that Tree that once eating should by Gods Covenant have confirmed his nature in his present created perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever Thirdly saith Mr. Ball the Lord having respect to the immutability of Adams Nature was pleased to try his obedience by symbolical Precepts But when the creature should grow to absolute perfection and unchangeablenesse then such symbolical Precepts and outward Seals should cease as needlesse It is generally granted that the Command concerning the two Trees was but for the present triall of Adams obedience And hence it follows that as soon as the triall was made which was to be made in the very day of Adams creation for God had determined to finish all his Works both of the visible and invisible Creation both of the earthly and of the spiritual Creation in six dayes as I have shewed at large in the Institution of the Sabbath then these symbolical signs of the two Trees must cease as needlesse God was pleased to promise the confirmation of his present natural perfections for one act of obedience so that had Adam but once eaten of the Tree of life as doubtlesse in wisdome he would have done before any other fruit if the Devil had not suddenly circumvented him by his Serpentine subtilty he had been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him for ever and then these symbolical Precepts should have ceased as needlesse as we see by experience they did cease upon Adams once eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill and so in like manner they should have ceased in case he had but once eaten of the Tree of life for when a Covenant is once fulfilled it ceaseth to be a Covenant any more for the performer hath the perpetual fruition of the benefit of it and so in like sort the will of God was that the once offering of the body of Christ should merit the eternal salvation of all the Elect Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9. 28. Fifthly This was the first Covenant saith Mr. Clendon wherein there is no mention of obedience to the moral Law In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 22. Secondly saith he Adam was under the obedience of the moral Law before God made any Covenant with him Gen. 1. 27. God created man in his own Image and this Image of God did stand in perfect Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse so that at the first instant of Adams creation he was under the obedience of the Moral Law even before God brought him into Paradise for he was created out of Paradise but the Covenant was not made with him till after he came into Paradise and being created perfect in knowledge he did perfectly know the eternal will of God and accordingly he did perfectly obey it And it may well be called the Law of nature but not a Covenant of nature because no promise of any reward was made to Adam for keeping the moral Law therefore perfect obedience to the moral Law was not the condition of the first Covenant but it was a necessary condition of mans perfection and a necessary consequent of Gods perfection that man was so created Sixthly It is not necessary saith Mr. Burges to make it a In vindiciae leges p. 118. question whether the breach of the moral Law would have undone Adam and his posterity as well as the transgression of the positive Law for all must necessarily think that the moral Law planted in his heart And obedience thereunto was the greatest part of Adams happinesse and holinesse Mark that he saith And obedience thereunto In which speech he doth fully concur with Mr. Clendon that Adam could not sin a moral sin Seventhly Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith The Law given to the In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51. first Adam non comedendi was over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit And a little after he calls it That special Law of not eating the forbidden fruit which was unto Adam praeceptum symbolicum as Divines call it given over and above and besides all the ten Commandements for a trial of his obedience to all the rest And such saith he was this Law given to Christ the second Adam Eighthly saith Mr. Blake The wicked Jews at their worst In vindiciae Faederis p â—0 could observe the command of non licet meats And the Command to Adam saith he was of a like nature But saith Mr. Norton in Page 189. As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws which were accessory Commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles So God at the Creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1. 27. After that gave him this accessory Command concerning the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill Gen. 2. 17. part of and reducible thereto as a conclusion to its principle And in Page 90. He concludes that the transgression of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a transgression of the same Law of works which was given afterwards by Moses Reply 2. This comparative Argument will not hold because there is a great difference between the moral Law of nature as it was written in Adams heart and the Decalogue as it was after given by Moses 1 The moral Law written in Adams heart is therefore called the moral Law of nature because it was made con-natural to him in his first creation But the Decalogue was given by Moses to fallen Adam and it was given as a Covenant of grace in Christ 2 The Decalogue as it was given by Moses to fallen Adam was given for the most part by way or prohibition to restrain mans corrupt nature But because Adam was created after Gods Image in moral perfections it was not sutable to be so given to him 3 There is not the like Reason why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the moral Law of nature as there is why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the Decalogue for the Decalogue was given as a Covenant of grace and therefore all the types of grace in Christ do appertain to it by vertue Gods positive Command which forbids many things that are indifferent in their own nature 4 The moral Law of nature did not injoyn Adam to observe every seventh day as a day of rest as the Decalogue doth 5 The fourth Command and some others in the Decalogue See Trap on Mat 5 p. 132. Dr. Ames in Medul c. 15. Sect. 12. vindiciae legis p. 62. 148. 213. are partly of a moral Constitution and partly of a positive As for example to observe some time for Gods special worship is moral but the determination of every seventh day is positive 6 The moral Law of nature did not require faith in Christ nor repentance for
sin as the Decalogue doth and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings c. must needs belong to it Seeing then there is so great a difference This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue Reason 2. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin If Adams eating had been a sin against the moral Law then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating against the moral Law then the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it had been a moral sin before her act of eating for the Text saith It was a desire to her eyes and she saw it was good for food and a Tree to be desired c. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxime of all that expound the moral Law that it binds the inward man as well as the outward and so saith our Saviour He that looks upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart Math. 5. 28. And in that respect Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we in Adam first sinned in soul properly And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons Divinity that there Adam sinned not in soul untill he had first sinned in body was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating And then her act of eating had not been her first sin as usually it is esteemed and called and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm In the day thou eatest thereof and not in the day thou desirest to eat shalt thou dye the death Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food and that it was a desire to her eyes yet if then she had but stayed her desire here and had gone no further she had not sinned For such positive Laws as this do not bind the inward man but the outward man only 1 Take this Instance If a Jew had desired to eat Swines flesh to satisfie his hunger because it was good food by creation and yet had forborn the act of eating he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purifie himself by washing in regard of his said inward desire to eat 2 Take another Instance It was a Ceremonial sin by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corps because it defiled the outward man only and not because it defiled the conscience for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience at least upon some of his near relations not only to desire but really to touch his dead Corps and to carry it to its burial 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford The Law of God because it is holy In Christs dying at Asser 5. p. 141. and spiritual doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motioâ—s of our soul and the Law of nature but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God such as was the Lords Command that Christ should dye for sinners is not required in the Law of God If Adam saith he had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit and had not eaten there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil And at Asser 4. page 140. he saith thus A conditional and submissive desire though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God is no sin nor doth the Law positive require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire Gods Command to Abraham saith he to kill his only Son and to offer him a sacrifice to God was a meer positive Command for it is not a command of the Law of Nature nor any other then positive for the Father to kill the Son yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love commanded also in the Law of nature to save his Sons life and doth desire that he may still live this desire and inclination though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God is no sin because the fifth Commandement grounded on the Law of nature did command it And Christs desire that the Cup might passe from him was Mat. 26. 39. The Command of God for Christ to dye was not a moral but a positive Command no sin Mat. 26. 39. Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command as Mr. Norton holds but a positive command and that command saith he did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversly propounded but at thirdly saith he the Father bargains by way of work or hire or wages to give a seed to his Son Es 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his Seed and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue affirmeth That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life was a moral Command and that Christs obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law in page 57. c. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him yet in this he is point blank against him These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws do prove that Adam sinned not in soul but in body only at first by his actual eating of the forbidden fruit by which sinfull bodily act his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature and then his soul was defiled with that contagion by reason of its personal union with his body just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since We say not saith Peter Martyr that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zauchy Tract Theol. c 4. de peccaâ—o originali the body is corrupt it resisteth the soul and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning obeyeth the inclination thereof and is governed by it and therefore hence it follows First That Adams sin was not a sin against the moral Law for there is no sin against the moral Law properly till the soul consent Secondly Hence it follows That the guilt of Adams bodily sin was not imputed to his soul till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body
Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p. 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shalt live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man dâ— he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19 Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 39 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ saith in Matth. 7. 21. he that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and sâ—â—d the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Joh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be undetstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural tohim and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised 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 without 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 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
A Farther Discussion OF THAT Great Point in DIVINITY the Sufferings of Christ AND The Questions about his Righteousnesse Active Passive and the Imputation thereof BEING A Vindication of a Dialogue Intituled The Meritorious Price of our Redemption Justification c. from â—he exceptions of Mr. Norton and others By WILLIAM PYNCHON late of New England LONDON Printed for the Author and are to bee sold at the Signe of the three Lyons in Corn-hill over against the Conduit MDCLV To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-soals for a sinful Malefactor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this â—â—ed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before-hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be reconciled to the Elect and receive them again into special favor as Sons by Adoption A learned Divine saith thus The fundamental grounds of Christianity do inforce us to grant That in the Divine nature though most indivisibly one there is an eminent Ideal pattern of such a distinction as we call between party and party a capacity to give and a capacity to receive a capacity to demand and a capacity to satisfie c. 5 From this eternal Decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son doth result the New Covenant with the Elect For it pleased them to agree That all the Articles of the New Covenant should be ratified and confirmed to the Elect by the death of Christ and from that confirmation by his death It is now stiled the New Testament Heb. 9. 15 16. 6 Presently after the Declaration of the said Enmity and Combate in Gen. 3. 15. namely in verse 19. It pleased God further to declare the Council of his will to fallen but now also converted Adam That he should return to the dust whence he was taken Gen. 3. 19. And this is also further to be noted That God denounced this judicial sentence of a bodily death on him as a just punishment for his original spiritual death in sin and this is also further evident by Rom. 5. 12. And secondly The Apostle doth also further tell us That when God appointed a bodily death to Adams sinful nature that he also did at the very same time appoint a judgement for each departed soul Heb. 9. 27. namely First That such as dyed in the faith of their Redemption by the seed of the woman
by them that hold such received errors when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes for in Mark 1. 27. they said What new doctrine is this But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is To make a thorow search into what both sides say and then to judge between us such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans And so resteth Thine in the truth of the Gospel W. PYNCHON A Table of the chief Heads But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen for the better observation of some Points and because some of them are too much for the Margin there set onely the first sentence and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton holds but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive symbolical command about things indifferent in their own nature Page 3. * Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws after the time of Adams fall is called the First Covenant of Works and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant as Ainsworth noteth in Psal 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver 12. and with Heb. 9. 19. * Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites Paul cals the Law of Works for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by Gods Covenant to purifie their bodies and so to make them fit persons to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary Rom. 3. 27. and 9. 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense Paul doth also call The Law of Faith to the spiritual Jews because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust onely on Christ for Life and Salvation Gal. 3. 2 3. Rom. 2. 26 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws did by Gods Ordinance make them to belong unto two diffâ—ring Covenants namely both to the Covenant of Works and to the Covenant of Grace contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent in p. 183 184. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature then Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating p. 7 Adam sinned not in soul until be had first sinned in body p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroniously but it was from a meer voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity as equal and reciprocal Covenanters p. 9 122 293 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9. The death of Christ saith Grotius was not determined by any Law that was given to man but by a special Covenant Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adams created nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature p. 10 Adams ignorance of that positive Law as of the event that was at the first given to the Angels which was to serve man though in the event many of them refused and thereby became Devils made him the more apt to be deceived by the Devils temptations p. 11 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adams disobedience to the moral Law but through his disobedience to a meer positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adams justification but it was ordained onely to be the condition of his created perfections and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place p. 14 No act of Adams obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life because no other act of his obedience but that alone was constituted by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practise of moral obedience therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections p. 21 * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially as the Faculties do from the soul for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joyned to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitâ—ed by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23.
and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death but a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p. 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. THe quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Atrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP. IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen 3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 9◠22 chap. 13 14 Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises By which wide differing expressions be leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123. holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to
consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But saith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate â—ioâ— from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decâ—ees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because be was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174. 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our redemption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound him and to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romant p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousness of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgement and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth
Page 1 3 p. 252 2 10 17 90 92 93 344 386 427 430 ib. 14 90 294 357 419 ib. 17 18 165 170 194 4 16 136 140 5 6 169 ib. 7 299 303 334 336 7 22 115 118 ib. 21 426 ib. 28 90 8 3 430 ib. 12 139 233 258 9 110 49 118 235 260 ib. 13 48 51 120 214 235 260 432 ib. 14 90 137 214 43â— ib. 15 16 90 137 181 420 428 ib. 18 23 120 ib. 22 124 ib. 24 196 ib. 26 49 195 ib. 27 28 147 358 10 4 433 ib. 5 294 ib. 7 43 ib. 10 46 122 124 237 259 ib. 32 340 12 2 146 178 269 339 13 13 270 1 Peter Ch. Vers Page 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John Ch. Vers Page 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. Ch. Vers Page 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition is this THe Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of his Father and his own voluntary consent obeyed the Law doing the Command in a way of Works and suffering the Essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original Righteousnesse as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth to beleeving Sinners for their Righteousnesse Reply I deny several things in this Proposition to be true But because all the particulars are but barely affirmed here though some proofs are hereafter alledged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annexed In the mean time the Reader may please to take notice That I deny first That Christ made any such Covenant by his voluntary consent with his Father as to be bound in the same obligation with Adam to fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction Secondly That the first Covenant made with Adam was not touching his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law but it was touching his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature CHAP. II. And first the true Nature of the first Covenant is Discussed SECTION 1. Where also Mr. Nortons second Proposition is examined which is this GOD in the First Covenant the substance whereof iâ— Do this and then sealt live Lev. 18. 5. But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Justice Mr. Norton proves by these two Scriptures that the nature of the first Covenant made with Adam was in relation to his obedience and disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature and he doth make great account of both these Scriptures because he cites them very often to that sense And in Page 186. He affirms that God propounded the Law of Works to man before his fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience And in Page 189. He saith That the summe of this Law is the two Tables and saith he it is called the Law of Works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life Lev. 18. 5. And this Law he calls Moral positive the habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of the Creation this binds perpetually and it is immutable And in Page 190. he saith The Transgression then of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the said Law of Works which was given to Adam and afterwards to Moses Reply 1. In opposition to Mr. Nortons description of the nature of the first Covenant I shall labour to prove that the true nature of the first Covenant was in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and not about the Moral Law of nature My first Reason is this If God made a Covenant with Adam concerning his obedience The first Covenant was not made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the Moral law of nature but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a positive Command about things indifferent in their own nature or disobedience about his eating of the two Trees the one called the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which was indifferent to be eaten or not eaten in their own nature then the first Covenant was not made concerning his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature unlesse Mr. Norton will affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam in his Innocency of a differing nature the one of positive and the other of moral Commands But it is absurd to affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam of such a differing nature Therefore one of the two must needs be null But the Covenant concerning the two Trees cannot be null because that Covenant is expressed in the Text therefore hence it follows that the moral Law of nature was not propounded to Adam as the first Covenant of works with the promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience as Mr. Norton affirmeth upon Scriptures mis-interpreted and on this sandy foundation he builds the greatest part of his Answer to the Dialogue The first Covenant was made with Adam concerning mans nature in general as he was the head of all mankind and that Covenant was this Eat of the Tree of life in the first place for I have ordained it as thou mayest perceive by the name given to it for the confirmation of thy created natural perfections to thee and to all thy seed for ever as these places conferred together do prove Gen. 1. 29. Gen. 2. 9. Gen 3. 2. Gen. 3. 22. and as I have also expounded in my Book of the Institution of the In his descent into Hell p. 163. 172. Sabbath And saith Christopher Carlile where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual Number it signifieth Immortality as Gnets Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality and so when Neshamah hath Caijm joyned to it it signifies the soul is immortal in Gen. 2. 7. Secondly Though this promise is not altogether so plainly expressed in the Text as the Threatning is yet seeing the Threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye is expressed plainly as the reward of his disobedient eating it follows by consequent saith Mr. Burges that some good thing is promised to obedience And what else say I can that good See Vindiciae legis lect 13. p. 123. Vindiciae Faedcris â— 9. And Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 8. thing be but the confirmation of his present mutable created perfections by his obedient eating of the Tree of life for in case he had
by vertue of personal union and by vertue of Gods justice as a punishment on him for the breach of Gods first Covenant Thirdly Hence it follows That Christs soul could not be made guilty of Adams first bodily sin by Gods imputation except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adams natural posterity are and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adams nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature in case See Blake on the Covenant p. 19. The perfection of Adams moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles See Perkins on the Creed p. 159 c. he had been tempted to a moral sin as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges It is too grosse an imagination to think that Adam being created after Gods Image in a perfect moral rectitude could will to sin against his moral natural principles doubtlesse it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature then it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil Mr. Perkins moveth this question How could Adam created after Gods Image will sin For a good tree cannot bring forth evill fruit He answers thus Freedome of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency But saith he at fourthly Freedome of will to things that are good in their own nature and which may become evill through prohibition This was in Adam before his Fall And Mr. Clendon saith thus The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified p. 23. break the moral Law he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law because he was created perfect both in his understanding will and affections as all confesse his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law And presently after he saith The liberty of Adams will did consist in this That he could not will any moral evill and herein he was created after the Image of God who is the most free Agent and therefore doth alwayes necessarily will that and only that which is good But about things indifferent in their own nature he had a liberty to will or nill to chuse or refuse c. And thus Mr. Perkins and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. afore-cited Reason 4. Adams ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adams ignorance of that positive Law and of the event that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation given to the Angels and of the Event thereof made him the more apt to be surprised by Sathans temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits which was that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature in these things Adam might well be ignorant for their actings being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses But the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit he was too cunning for her Doubtlesse she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam as their Lord and to serve them for their best good and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to perswade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt In these and such like things her understanding was not inlightned as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat and a desire to her eyes and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evill more then she had by Creation she was perswaded to take and eat and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him did take and eat and then the eyes of them both were opened not only in the Theory but also in the experience of evil upon themselves for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin This I bring to shew that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature but against a positive Law only about things in their own nature indifferent and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin his moral perfections were such that he would soon have found out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premises 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he
had by that act discovered himself to Adam as he did to Christ to be naught then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation for then Adams will would have been governed by his inlightned mind and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature as they were to Christ and then he would have said to Sathan as Christ did Hence Sathan and then Sathan could not have prevailed afterwards for Adams wisdome was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place as the best food for his confirmation 3 Hence it follows That Adam did not first sin in soul as Mr. Norton holds and as indeed he had done in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature but his sin was only against that positive Law that did only forbid his bodily act of eating as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works 4 Hence it follows That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant about things indifferent in their own nature p. 188. is sound and good namely in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of such a positive Law as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law 5 Hence it follows That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life as his wisdome would have caused him to do in the very first place if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him they should have had a propagated Righteousnesse because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a publick person saith Mr. Burges and also generally all Protestant Divines 6 Hence it follows That the moral Law in Adams nature was not ordained for Adams justification as Mr. Norton holds The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adams justification but as a conditâ—on only of his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of life but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection for God could not make man perfect but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law But Mr. Norton saith in Page 231. That four things were requisite to Adams justification by the works of the Law And at fourthly he saith That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience Reply From this Assertion it follows That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity and yet have failed at last and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years space and all the rest after that time after the image of Sathan And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this namely That upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law And saith he in Page 244 Adams justification consisted not in one act of obedience This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant For it is acknowledged by Bucanus whom I No act of Adams obedience had been imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act in eating of the tree of life in case be had stood have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3. that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first and that first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was not so much personal as natural namely it was common to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adams obedience That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant See Vindicae Legis also in p. 119 120. Secondly Hence also it follows That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life that act also had justified him no further but from Sathans accusaâ—ion And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life But any man that hath but half an eye may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses but especially to the Ceremonial Law And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall except only of justification from the Devils accusation and temptation as I said before for no doubt the Devil had said to God as he said afterwards against Job that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam then Adam would disobey as they had done But in case Adam had not yeelded to Sathans temptation but had taken warning by the prohibition and by the threatning and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit but had first eaten of the Tree of life then he had been justified by that act against Sathans accusation and temptation but he needed no justification in respect of his obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant In Vindiciae legis lect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 16â— 178. but that of Grace The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did purposely make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there to eat actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and stead to the
end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence iâ— follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby the might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesuâ— Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Whitgenstenius at the end of Vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often cite it as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted Lev. 18. 5. See Bâ—ll on the Covenant p. 136. as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Law in every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Rom. 2. 13. Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It is evident that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace And this Mr. Ball shews abundantly in page 102. 130 135 166 178. c. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus Paul describeth the righteousnesse In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5 6. from these words Do this and live which are said to have reference to Lev. 18. 5. But saith he We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse which is by faith and saith he Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speaks of the Law Paul doth apply it to the Gospel 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace in page 229. c. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law Do this and live 5 Mr. Baxter saith Do this and live is a Gospel condition In his Saints Rest p 9. 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish
of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adams means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a
III. The Examination of Mr. Nortons third Query in Page 5. which is this Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Ans In three things 1 In the dignity of his person obeying 2 In the quality or kind of his obedience 3 In the acceptation of this obedience SECT 1. Reply 1 THere is no need to say any thing to the first branch of his Answer But to the second branch touching the quality or kind of his obedience there is need of examination for Mr. Norton makes all the obedience of Christ to be legal obedience in opposition to the Dialogue that doth distinguish between his Legal and Mediatorial obedience In page 6. Mr. Norton saith His obedience was legal obedience the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto But I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant did not stand in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and from Mr. Rutherfurd that the Command of God for Christ to dye was not from the moral Law but from a positive Law only Reply 2. Mr. Norton doth also contradict himself touching the quality or kind of Christs obedience For first he saith It The kind of Christs obedience as Mediator was to a peculiar positive law But Mr. Norton doth 1 affiâ—m that the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal and 2 he doth contradict that and saith it was more also was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto But secondly he contradicts this for in page 201. he saith That the will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of Works more This last word more is a contradiction of what he said formerly If his obedience was more then Legal obedience then his obedience was not the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto for he understands the first Covenant to be made according to the moral Law and to confute himself the more manifestly he brings in Pareus and Rivet in the former page to prove that Christs obedience as Mediator was more then legal Pareus asserting a special obedience imposed on the Mediator alone and Rivet a singular command of laying down his life from Joh. 10. 18. Now let the Reader judge especially such as are acquainted with Pareus judgement whether that special obedience which was imposed on the Mediator alone be no other then legal obedience or whether it be the same in nature and measure which we in the first Covenant stood bound unto according to Mr. Nortons sense of that Covenant And secondly let the Reader also judge whether it be possible for Mr. Norton to make a true description of the true nature of Christs satisfaction while he is thus confounded in the nature of Christs obedience as Mediator SECT 2. In page 140. He calls the Dialogues distinction of Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience A new Law and a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law And in page 108. He calls this distinction An erronious and mis-leading distinction Reply WHether Mr. Norton will own this distinction or no the matter will be the lesse with a judicious Reader because it hath the approbation of many eminent orthodox Divines besides Pareus and Rivet who do ground the said distinction on these and the like Scriptures Joh. 10. 18. Joh. 14. 31. Joh. 17. 4. Heb. 10. 7 9 10. Psal 40 7 8. Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Es 53. 10. Heb 10 7. In Vindiciae legis lect 1 p. 13. See also Blake on the Covenant p. 25. 1 It is disputed saith Mr. Burges Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever saith he the Arians from the grant of this did infer Christs absolute inferiority to his Father yet saith he our orthodox Divines do conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it 2 Mr. Gataker doth place the merit of Christs obedience Bartho Wegil Sangalensis in his Ans to the 5 Reason of the 13 Thesis and satisfaction wholly in this kind of Mediatorly obedience and not in his legal obedience for thus he answers to Bar. Wegiline that holds to Christs legal obedience for merit as Mr. Norton doth Non est necâ—sse ut Christus legis moralis sive naturalis placita implendo vel sibi vel nobis quicquam fuerit promeritus non magis quam ut Angeli qua creatura rationalis unaquaequae creationis ipsius nomine Deo creatori ex efficio debeat quicquid lex illa à quequam exigit In English thus It is not necessary that Christ in fulfilling the moral and natural Law should deserve any thing for himself or us no more then the Angels seeing every rational creature in the very name of its creation ows all things on duty to its Creator whatsoever the Law requires of any and he doth fully manifest his judgement in his Elenchtick Animadversions upon Gomarus p. 1. Thes 1. p. 15. Thes 8. p. 17. Thes 9. p. 19. Thes 11. p. 25. Thes 15. p. 49. Thes 32. And in his Animadversions upon the disputes betwixt Piscator and Lucius in the meritorious cause of our justification Partis primae Sect. 1. p. 2. 12. Sect. 4. p. 18. Sect. 6. numero 4. p. 19. Sect. 7. numero 1. Partis secundae p. 57. Sect. 2. numero 16. 70. Sect. 8. numero 6. And there he gives this reason because Christ performed moral obedience for himself and not for us 3 Pareus saith That those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse De Justitiâ Christi activâ passivâ p. 101 102. and in his Epist to Whitgenstenius 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. 107. 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. Gataker propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith That the Law which Christ In his Book of the hâ—aâ—t of Christâ—â—n 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
in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 8. 15. Rom. 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ wâ—thin the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation is no part of the Gospel but in the second sense it is Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance is to make good his answer to the Dialogue namely that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works even as Damnation though it be no part of the Gospel yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel I say the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it and therefore he hath not as yet proved that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17. But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text for saith he in page 24 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited was a figure of Rom. 5 14. Christ to come Rom. 5. 14. Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited But in the effects that followed
15. 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell and then we also see by experience that it was not formally executed God doth often dispence with hâ—s peremptory threatnings on Adam but this is certain that what God hath threatned against man for sin he may justly inflict but he is not alwayes bound to it except his threatnings be delivered with an oath Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin but not what shall infallibly be inflicted as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience that God did often repent of his Threatnings and thereupon did alter them from what hee had expressed in his revealed will but not from what he had decreed in his secret will As for example God sent his Prophet Isaiah to Hezekiah saying Set thy house in order for to dye thou shalt dye and not live This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is delivered first Affirmatively to dye Thou shalt dye that is Thou shalt 2 King 20. 1â— surely dye And secondly It is delivered Negatively Thou shalt not live And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threatning was alterable and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer that God would spare his life and give him a son to sin upon his Throne and God heard his prayer and altered his threatning and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will and for the removal of threatned evils 2 King 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations for our prayers Gen. 19. 21. Joh. 3. 10. Es 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the childs life after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee willeth not only to prove us Mat. 15. 23 24 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb 14 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death yet the Apostle saith also That we shall not all dye 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God we see doth often alter his peremptory threatnings 2 Take another Instance God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying Thou art but a dead man that is saith Ainsworth Thou shalt surely dye This threatning saith Traheron on Rev. 4 seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning as that to Adam and yet indeed saith he it had a secret condition which is after expressed in verse 7. Restore her now to her husband if thou restore her not see the condition now expressed which at first was reserved know thou shalt surely dye But take notice of this that when God told Adam If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge thou shalt surely dye there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sentence of death in sin for till Christ was revealed no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatning neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings except they bee delivered with an oath God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters when they have threatned a child or servant that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished yet when the fault is committed they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves or the party offending or to both than if the punishment had been inflicted then who can deny that liberty to God himself who is a most absolute Supreme 3 Take another Instance Jonah said Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traheron not declaring Gods secret determination what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning 4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse when they defile my Tabernacle that is among them This threatning God did sometimes execute and sometimes he did not execute it but did alter it at his pleasure as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the dayes of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 30. 19 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19 20. of them were sick and weak and dyed and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiah were healed and restored to health And so death is threatned in Num. 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dye yet God dispenced with death to King Vzziah and smote him with leprosie and Saul dyed not though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing But I intreat the judicious Reader to take notice that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption where he affirms That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse but that it must be born either by Adam or else by Adams Surety In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase In dying Thou shalt dye is alterable even to men that are not in Christ upon their temporary repentance as in Niniveh and Ahab SECT V. But saith Mr. Norton This threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law for he makes Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law Reply 7 I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature as his moral Law was positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature as the eating of the two Trees was for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature but reserved in Gods secret Decree to be imposed on man for an act or acts for a time as hee pleased to appoint and then to be annihilated again I grant that the moral Law of nature did direct Adam to obey God in whatsoever positives he should appoint But yet by the Law of nature he knew not any of Gods positives till they were particularly revealed neither can man without a special revelation know the reason of them because they depended only on the good pleasure of God and therefore Adams moral perfections could not prevent but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of
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 truth 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 dispute 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 testimonies 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 Gods Righteousness according to his Covenant with Christ not to impute their sins but to justifie them formally by his non-imputation I say it again to have it the better marked That this kind of righteousness God hath constituted to be a sinners righteousness from his voluntary Covenant with Christ where the rule in all natural causes positâ caulâ sequitur effectus is not to be observed for all voluntary Causes have voluntary Effects according to the liberty of will that is in the Covenanters they by their positive Ordinance and Covenant have constituted a righteousness for sinners by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods reconciliation as soon as the Holy Ghost hath united them to Christ by Faith But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. c. Pardon of sin cannot compleat Righteousness for Righteousness doth not consist in being sinless but also in being just the Heavens are sinless yet they are not just the unreasonable creature is sinless saith he in p. 209. but not righteous Reply 5. Every mean person knows that the Heavens and such like unreasonable Creatures are a subject that is not capable of forgiveness because
that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousneâ—s 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 Ezod 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 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 exemplifie 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
an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto he was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141. and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dan 9. 24 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely or the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sins See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now Heb. 9. 26. once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Justifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8. 14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jâ—stification And in this
desert of sin But suppose that God doth in some cases inflict punishments immediately on some mens souls by his supreme power without respect of sin yet that doth not answer to the Proposition of the Dialogue for the Dialogue doth not speak of mens souls but of Christs soul The Dialogue saith That Christs soul is not capable of bearing wounds from Gods immediate wrath But all Mr. Nortons proofs are of mens souls that are sinners But saith Mr. Norton in page 38. Sathan being a spirit may have access unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5. 5. Eph. 2. 12. 16. Reply 7. What though Sathan may afflict the spirit of a sinner yet still that doth not prove his Proposition which hee undertook to make good namely That God from his immediate wrath did afflict the spirit of Christ But saith Mr. Norton If Sathan cannot yet God can Reply 8. What God can do is one thing and what God did to the soul of Christ is another thing But still his Proposition to be proved is That God did inflict his immediate wrath upon the soul of Christ without any second means 2 For a more full answer to both the former speeches of In his Child of Light p. 52 53. 120. Mr. Norton I shall refer you to Mr. Thomas Goodwin hee saith that the soul of Adam in his innocency and the soul of Christ were privileged from all inward suggestions from Sathan and that Sathan could tempt them no otherwise but by his outward temptations only And I find other Divines to accord with him 3 He sheweth also that God doth not torment the souls of the damned by his immediate wrath but by second means For saith hee though God is to be feared because hee only can cast both body and soul into hell Yet saith hee this is not meant as if God were the immediate Tormentor of souls after the great day seeing they are to bee tormented by that fire which God hath prepared in common for them and the Devils 4 P. Martyr in his Com. pl. part 4. pag. 314. saith It is the property of God to command and not to execute things commanded And saith Baxter in his Saints Rest page 275. God afflicts mens souls not immediately but by instruments But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53. 10. When thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding Mat. 26. 38. sorrowful to the death Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. His great heaviness sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of blood Mar. 14. 33. Luke 22. 44. cannot bee looked at in a person that was Luke 22. 44. God and man as less than the effects of Soul-sorrows Hell-sorrows Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell Reply 9. I have shewed in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 16. Sect. 3. That the soul of Christ in these places quoted by Mr. Norton are meant of his vital soul and not of his immortal soul 2 That Christ himself was his own Afflicter with soul-sorrows Chap. 16. Sect. 2. and Chap. 17. Sect. 4. Reply 15. 3 When all these cited Scriptures are put together they prove no more but this that Christ suffered much in his soul as well as in his body But where doth any of them say That his soul-sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath without any second means which is the very point that Mr. Norton undertook to make good But saith hee His great heavinesse sore amazement and sweat as it were great drops of blood cannot bee looked at in a person that was both God and man as lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows c. Reply 10. Doth not Mr. Norton hold forth in these words that the humane nature of Christ was a true part of his divine person why else doth he say That his great heavinesse sore Christs humane nature was often purposely left of the divine nature that so it might be touched with the sense of our infirmities more than ours can be amazement c. cannot be looked at in a person that was God and man as lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows as if Christs humane nature was not able to bear these sorrows without the powerful assistance of his divine nature It seems to mee he thinks that his Godhead by vertue of personal union did alwaies co-operate to the assisting of his humane nature to undergo his soul-sorrows as our bodies are holpen to bear our sufferings by our souls by reason of personal union But I shall joyn with those Divines that reason contrary for both ancient and latter Divines do often say That his divine nature did often rest that so his humane nature might bee touched with the feeling of our infirmities and this the divine nature might do because the humane nature was no true part of his divine person as our souls are to make our bodies a person but an Appendix only The union of his humane nature to his divine person was such an ineffable union that it cannot bee exemplified by any other union whatsoever Indeed if his humane nature had been a true part of his divine person as our souls are of our persons then it must have holpen his humane nature to bear his sorrows but I think it is no lesse than heresie to hold so but because it was but an Appendix to his divine person therefore the divine nature could put out his power to leave the humane nature to its self and to its own qualifications to bee touched to the utmost with thâ—â— sensible feeling of our infirmities and therefore I say That the perfections of his humane nature and the unction of the holy Spirit at his instalment was sufficient to support him and to regulate his soul-sorrows without the co-operation of his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so hee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as
in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomata for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dan. 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out the filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hâ—brew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10. 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first codemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver
at large he dyed not saith Mr. Smith of Clavering afore cited with extremity of pains as others do And saith Mr. White of Dorchester and Mr. Perkins afore cited by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under his torments longer than the two Theeves And saith Erasmus afore cited He did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying And saith Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue page 101. Christ dyed not by degrees as his Saints do his senses did not decay no pangs of death took hold upon him but in perfect sense patience and obedience both of body and soul he did by his infinite power voluntarily resign his Spirit as he was praying into the hands of his Father without any trembling or struggling or without any shew of the sense of his pains And several others both of the ancient and later Divines I have immediately cited that speak to this purpose which proves that Christ had no necessary weakness to bear his Cross but voluntary weakness hee had at his pleasure that hee might bee truly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And take also into consideration what Austin saith de Trinit lib. 13. c. 14. where he expounds 2 Cor. 13. 4. thus even of that 2 Cor. 13. 4. infirmity wherein Christ was crucified the Apostle also saith The weakness of God is stronger than men Whatsoever seemed weakness in Christ saith he is so called in comparison of his divine power And again his weakness was such that it far passed the power and strength of us men and therefore in 1 Cor. 1. 24 25. Christ crucified is called the power of God because he was both God and man in one person and therefore as soon as he had finished all his sufferings wherein he shewed 1 Cor. 1. 24 25. his true voluntary weakness hee breathed out his soul even whiles he was in the full strength of nature by the joynt concurrence of both his natures To dye saith Bernard is a great infirmity but so to dye saith he is an exceeding power Hence then I conclude That when the Executioners did compel a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it It doth not prove that Christ had less strength of nature left to bear it than the Theeves had as Mr. Norton doth argue it proves no more but this either that Christ had voluntary weakness or else that they thought him to have such necessary weakness appertaining to his nature as other sinful men have that are over-burdened for they could not discern his voluntary weakness from necessary weakness unless they had known him to be God and man in one person and therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross And who can tell but that the Theeves had some to help them bear their Cross as well as Christ had and therefore it is a weak argument to prove that Christ had less strength of nature to bear his Cross than the two Theeves because they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross seeing the Scripture is silent whether the two Theeves did bear their own Cross without any help from others But saith Mr. Norton in page 168. 'T is true no Torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and it is also true that Torments killing in themselves could kill him when he pleased And saith he in page 86. Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power Joh. 10. 18. yet saith he by his limited power he could not But as our Surety he was bound to permit the course of Poysical causes and the prevailing power of darkness for the fulfilling of what was written concerning him Luke 22. 53. The Jâ—ws therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary obliged permission did take away his life they did not only endeavour but also actually kill him c. Reply 27. I have often warned to have it the better marked That the death of Christ is set out to us two wayes in the blessed Scriptures First Either more largely by his suffering the pains of death as a sinful Malefactor from his envious Combater Satan Oâ— secondly more strictly by setting out the formality of his death as it was made a sacrifice when his soul was separated from his body by his own Priestly power But Mr. Norton is much displeased with this distinction because it crosseth his Doctrine of Satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell as our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam Now in the first sense it is true That Christ was ordained to be the seed of the sinful deceived woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane infirmities hee was to combate with our malicious Enemy Satan and in that respect he must permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of the Prince of darkness to do him all the mischief he could to provoke his patience and to disturb him in the course of his obedience according to Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen. 3. 15. 2 But yet notwithstanding it is not any where written that Christ covenanted to let the powers of darkness to take away his life formally I do not find that Christ had limited himself by his obliged permission to let the Jews and Romans take away his life actually and formally as Mr. Norton holds Nay I say the blessed Scriptures do plainly deny this as I have opened Joh. 10. 17 18. in Reply 25. Secondly It is also further evident that none but himself was ordained to bee the Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice because God made him a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek by an oath which declares That according to the eternal Decree and the unchangeable Council Heb. 7. 21. and Covenant of God he should be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice and in that respect Christ saith None taketh my vital soul from me I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 17 18. Joh. 10. 17 18. And hence I reason thus If Christ received this Commandement from his Father then doubtless his Father had covenanted that he should be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he would accept it as the full price of mans Redemption 3 I have often shewed that Christs humane nature was so perfect that it was priviledged from our natural death and sufferings and that his death and sufferings was undertaken only by his voluntary Covenant and that Covenant made it upon performance according to the Articles to be the full price of mans Redemption These
therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Joh. 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10 compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of savour Heb. 10. 10. The woâ—d Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness 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