Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apâ— Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capro Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech In his seven Candlesticks p. 35â— 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infirmities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sem and Japhet did Noahs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sinâ— And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Oâ—gen Melancthoâ— Bucer Calven Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In moralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his deaâ—h saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee
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
Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joyes of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have accorded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The founder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical sense of Hell may bee thus considered Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades except in one place and there it is translated The metaphorical sense of Sheol Haides Thanatos death the word in both languages is of large signification and it may be ranked into these senses First It signifies sorrows and afflictions Secondly Death to the person Thirdly The Grave to the body Fourthly The world of souls to the souls departed namely to the godly soul Paradise and to the wicked Gehenna for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dye whether they bee faithful and go to heaven or unfaithful and go to hell but Hades is first used for the hell of the damned in Luke 16. 2. Secondly For the penal hell of the godly in suffering persecutions and afflictions in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them 3 It is used for soul-sorrows when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time
should come into the world as a stately conquering Monarch to redeem them from the Tyranny of the Nations of the world and to restore them again into their own land in a more glorious manner than ever before And secondly it was their common opinion that their Messiah should not dye at all but that he should continue alive for ever in his stately Monarchy This was their common received opinion of Redemption by the Messiah as it is evident by Joh. 12 23 32 34. and by Jonathans Paraphrase and by their Thalmud which is cited by Maymony and translated by Mr. Bro. in Eccles p. 31. c. And therefore when Paul opened and alledged from the Scriptures that the Messiah must needs have suffered from Satan and his Instruments for their redemption it was a great stumbling block of offence to the Jews in general 1 Cor. 1. 23. and yet notwithstanding some few of their Hebrew Doctors held and wrote otherwise namely That the Messiah must suffer much evil from the enmity of Satan For saith Du Plessis in the Trueness of Religion page 531. Some of the Rabbins in the Thalmud say That Christ should be distressed as a woman that labors of a child according as Jeremy saith He had great Anguishes to suffer but that he would indure them willingly to deliver man from sin And saith he Rab. Hadarson saith That Satan should be an enemy to him and to his Disciples And saith he in the book of Ruth where it is written Eat thy bread and temper it with vinegar This Bread saith the Commentary is the bread of the anointed King or Messiah who shall be broken for mens sin and indure great torments as it is written in Isaiah And saith he Rabbi Symeon Ben Jochai writeth thus Wo worth the Murthorers of Israel for they shall kill Christ God will send his Son cloathed in mans flesh to wash them and they will kill him And saith he Whereas it is said we be healed by his death or stripes the ancient Cabalists understand it of Christ and say that the Angels had taught them that the clensing away of siâ— should be done upon Wood. And saith Du Plessis in page 478. Rab. Hechadosh saith That the Messiah shall by his death save Adams race and deliver mens souls from Hell and therefore hee shall be called Saviour And secondly Some few of the Hebrew Doctors did also hold the Resurrection of the Messiah For saith Du Plessis in page 532 533. Rab. Hadarson and Rab. Hachadosh and Rab. Jonathan the son of Uzziel and others do expound these Texts of the Resurrection of Christ Thou wilt not suffer thy holy One to see corruption And he shall be raised again within the third day for it is written He will quicken us after two dayes and in the third day will he raise us up again And say the Rabbins in Bresith Rabba commenting on Gen. 22. 4. There are many a three dayes in the holy Scriptures of which one is the Resurrection of the Messiah See Ains in Gen. 22. 4. These two points of Doctrine which was scoffed at by the wise Philosophers of the Gentiles Act. 17. 18 c. which was held but by a very few among the Jews Paul taught to be the only truth in their Synagogues and he opened and alledged the Scriptures to prove these points But because these points of Doctrine were contrary to their now common received opinion Therefore the Church or Synagogue of Thessalonica being forestalled by their erronious judgements were inraged at it and like mad men did tooth and nayl persecute Paul for it but yet he was hid from their rage and he that held the truth was glad to obscure himself at the present and to haste away out of their Jurisdiction unto the Jurisdiction of the Synagogue of Berea But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge thereof they sent thither also and stirred up the people against Paul verse 13. because hee held and taught the said Doctrine there But although at the first it seemed very strange and â—ew to them of Berea as it did to them of Thessalonica yet they did not persecute Paul for it because the chief Rulers there were of a more wise temperate and noble disposition than they of Thessalonica and therefore they took a wiser course For they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so or no And this is worthy of all due consideration that they did not content themselves with a superficial search of one day and away but they made it their daily work to search the Scriptures neither did they trust only to the Expositions of those Hebrew Doctors that were now commonly received but they searched into the Scriptures themselves conferring what Paul had taught and his proofs with the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets held forth in the Old Testament 2 Pet. 1. 19. concerning the promised Messiah where the first Scripture to be examined is in Gen. 3. 15. And first By this means Pauls two points of Doctrine which seemed new to them at the first shew was found by them to be the only true Doctrine of the blessed Scriptures and by that means many of them beleeved the said points with many honourable women which were Greeks and of men not a few verse 12. Secondly By this means Pauls new Doctrine in shew escaped the odium of Heresie in this place Thirdly By this means the Synagogue of Berea escaped from being ranked by the holy Ghost in the number of the other inraged zealous persecutors of the truth I do earnestly therefore intreat thee Good Reader as thou desirest to escape the odium of a Persecutor and as thou desirest to have the like commendations with those of Berea search the blessed Scriptures not only superficially and by some common received Expositors but search them deliberately and search them daily and then thou shalt be the better able to try which of us do give the true sense of the blessed Scriptures for as Peter saith of Pauls Epistle to the dispersed Hebrews some things are hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other Scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3 16. and therefore be diligent in thy search and the rather because Interpreters give variety of interpretations and therefore look well to the Context and look well to the force and use of the original word by comparing it with the Context and with other Scriptures for when Paul went about to convince error and to confirm the truth he disputed out of the Scriptures Act. 17. 2. and so Apollos disputed out of the Scriptures Act. 18. 28. And our Savior said Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. â—9 meaning thereby that they did erre because they did mis-understand the Scriptures for though they knew the letter of the Scriptures and had them in great reverence yet they did erre because through a superficial perusal they took them in a wrong
causes and according to the way All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins imputed and order of those causes the suffering of punishments is not a Relate to the imputation of sin preceding As for example in the point of tryal of Masteries there the suffering of punishments is meerly and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant both in the Law-makers and in the undertakers and such were all the sufferings of Christ they were all from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and all his outward sufferings were from his voluntary undertaking to enter the lists with Sathan according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. and not from the imputation of the guilt of our sins according to the order of Court-justice I grant also that when ever God doth punish any one in See Burges on Justif p. 27. anger it is alwayes from the imputation of sin in the subject and so saith Mr. Burges God afflicts none namely in anger but where there is sin in the subject and in that sense guilt and punishment are Relates but yet from the Voluntary cause and Covenant punishments may be suffered without judicial imputation and so consequently without judicial anger But of this see more in my Reply to 2 Cor. 5. 21. The guilt of Adams sin saith Dr. Reynolds is inseparable from In his sinfulnesse of sin p. 35. the sin it self being the proper passion of it Lo in this short sentence how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adams first sin he makes his guilt to be the proper passion of his first sin And hence it follows necessarily according to Mr. Norton That the guilt of Adams sin being imputed to Christ he must be spiritually dead in sin for spiritual death in sin is the proper guilt and proper passion of Adams first sin This I hinted at in the Dialogue And of this see more in Chap. 2. in R. 2. ult If original sin had not been ordained in Gods justice to bee the proper guilt and punishment of Adams first sin then it would follow that Adams cating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin And now compare Mr. Nortons distinction to the guilt of Adams sin Imputation of guilt saith he is the obligation to punishment By this Doctrine it follows that Christ did suffer the guilt and punishment of Adams first sin namely a spiritual death in sin God imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all men because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by vertue of Gods Covenant touching mans nature in general Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam because Gods Covenant was made with Adam and the nature of all mankind in general as I have shewed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatned but so was not Christ hee was not of Adam by ordinary Generation Our guilt saith Mr. Baxter in his Preface to Mr. Ayr page 7. was Reat us culpae poenae propter culpam ex obligatione legis Christs guilt is but Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obligatus ad eandem the same in value but not Eadem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molinaeus page 224. he doth justly taxe this kind of Imputation to bee the very root and master veyn of all Antinomianism And in page 225. saith hee Bee it known to you therefore that Christ did obey and suffer in the person of a Mediator and not in persona delinquentis though for the sins of the Delinquent being obliged to suffer by his voluntary undertaking and therefore his sufferings or obedience are none of ours as performed by him But Mr. Norton in the point of imputing our sins to Christ doth go beyond his said Distinction as I apprehend For in page 79. ult Hee saith That Christ was a notorious Malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God In page 98. Whom wee have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect both hanged upon the Crosse and others In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Reply 3. In these and other like places he makes our sins as well as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It In Rom 5. p. 121. b. cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hee hath before committed sin unlesse wee will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them P. Martyr I confess speaks this of Infants that dye before they have committed any actual sin but yet it is a four square truth in general Turn it on which side you will and it will lye fast he tells Pigghius that God could not impute the guilt of Adams sin to Infants unlesse Infants had been first truly guilty of Adams sin and it is evident that all Infants and all the world are truly guilty of Adams sin because all mankind were in Adam not only naturally but also legally in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him as the head of mans nature in general So that by the force of that Covenant concerning mans nature in general all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant in case of Adams obedience and in the evil of the Curse of that Covenant in case of his disobedience and therefore seeing all had this equal interest in the Covenant of nature it follows that wee had an interest in his sin as well as in his guilt and therefore the guilt of his sin is justly imputed to Infants as well as unto others and this example doth shew us that sin and guilt are relates in the same subject and not in two distinct subjects and this David did acknowledge in Ps 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Mark this he doth acknowledge that God did not onely forgive his sin but the iniquity guilt or punishment of his sin namely condemnation but not all outward punishments In these words I say it is evident that David doth acknowledge that sin and guilt do cleave as close together as the skin and flesh do to the bones and the like he doth acknowledge in Psal 41. 5. and therefore if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ then out of doubt sin it self was imputed to Christ also and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do Secondly touching the point of Gods imputation I beleeve it cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that God doth impute
as I have noted in the first Distinction one may be in the Hell of conscience saith Mr. Wilson in his mystical cases p. 188. who shall never come into the hell of the damned But saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ dying page 35. 39. The hel in the soul of Gods children and the hell of the Reprobate differ in Essence and Nature 4 Bucer makes Christs bodily death to be penal Hell his Bucer in Mat. â—7 â—3 words translated by Carlisle speak thus The ancient Fathers make no mention of Limbus or Purgatory Let us saith he let this passe as the inventions of men and let us rather give thanks to the Lord who hath thrust his own Son into infernum that is to say saith he that willed him to dye truly that by his death we might be delivered Two things are observable in the words of Bucer 1 That he calls the bodily death of Christ Infernum or Hell 2 That he ascribes our deliverance from hell to the true bodily death of Christ 5 I grant that Christ suffered the sorrows of Sheol and Hades in a Metaphorical sense but in no sense did he suffer the sorrows of Gehenna and that is the word that is properly meant of Hell torments so that by Mr. Norton Christ must suffer the Essential torments of Gehenna in a penal Gehenna in this world Of which see Mar. 9. 43. 45. 6 Mr. Norton by his distinction of a local and penal Hell See Marbecks Com pl. p 22. doth much favour the opinion of the Albanenses whose fourth Heresie was this That in Hell there are no other pains than bee in this world and Mr. Norton holds that there are no other essential pains than what Christs suffered in this world The opinions are very neer a kin though in other matters I esteem Mr. Norton far afore them SECT 3. 3. MR. Norton labours to confirm his said distinction of a local and penal Hell by this Scripture Thou wilt not leave psal 16. 10. Act 2. 27. It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret Hell in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell torments and then only the the Grave my soul in Hell this is cited in Psal 16. 10. and in Act. 2. 27. The soul saith he in page 39. is understood by judicious and learned Authors properly Hell Metaphorically for such pains as are equivalent to the pains of Hell it self But yet Mr. Norton doth fully contradict and confute both himself and his learned and judicious Authors for in page 110. he saith That the word Hades in the Creed is doubtlesse to bee interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture But saith he in Acts 2. 27. It is taken for the Grave Here he affirms it is taken for the Grave and yet in the place fore-cited he saith It is taken for the pains of Hell it self by the judgement of learned and judicious Authours I confesse I cannot but wonder that hee should make hell in one and the same text to signifie such different things it is a manifest testimony of the uncertainty of his judgement 2 If Haides in Greek and Sheol in Hebrew and Hell in English signifie no more but the Grave in the said Scriptures then I wonder how Mr. Norton can interpret the word Soul properly of the immortal Soul of Christ as he doth with the approbation of learned and judicious Authors Doth the same Scripture in the same words affirm that Christs immortal Soul did one while suffer the pains of hell in this life and another while lye buried with his body in the Grave Is not this to make the holy Scripture to be no better than a leaden Rule to bee bowed this way that way after the fantasies of men at their pleasures He tells mee in page 258. That the Scripture lyeth not in the sound of words but in the sense but in this hee doth halt of his own sore and therefore I retort his own words to himself that most pestilent Doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture c. 3 Saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul in Psal 16. 10. and Act. 2. 27. is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly If Mr. Norton do approve the judgement of those learned and judicious Authors to the Reader why then doth he in page 110. take Hell for the Grave was his soul properly taken buried in his Grave Secondly why doth Mr. Norton blind the Reader by saying that learned and judicious Authors do take the word Soul properly seeing hee cannot be ignorant that other learned and judicious Authors take the word Soul there for the vital soul only that liveth and dyeth with the body that soul might be dislocated in his body when he dyed and so it might be buried with his body in the grave Mr. Ains on the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. in his conclusion saith thus Compare it namely this word Soul with the like in other places as Psal 30. 4. Psal 116. 8. and Psal 89. 49. and 88. 4. and 94. 17. all which places are clearly meant of the vital soul and then hee makes application of this to Christ Christ saith he gave his soul for the Ransome of the world and powred it out to death Isa 53. 12. Mat. 20. 28. Joh. 10. 11 15 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus these words Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell teach us Christs Resurrection as if he should say Thou wilt not leave me to the power of Death or Grave to be consumed Mark this close of Mr. Ainsworths hee interprets Hell to bee Deaâ—h or the Grave 2 Mr. Broughton in his two Works defensive expounds Psal 16. 10. thus Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death In these words he expounds Christs soul to be his vital soul and Sheol Hell to be Death as Bucer did at fourthly above Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death and by a consequent saith Bro. nor my body in the Grave nor my soul among souls till my body see corruption And in his explication of the Article of Descent into Hell page 16. he saith thus Peter and Paul both citing this 16. Psalm do cite it to no further death then that which all must feel 3 Mr. Carlisle saith thus on Psal 16. 10. Thou wilt not leave Nephes my body in the Grave for indeed the vital soul is a part of In his book against Christs local Descent p. 32. the body and thus speaks our larger Annotations on Psal 16. 10. I confesse it is to my admiration that Mr. Norton should commend that exposition of the word Soul for Christs immortal soul properly and yet by Sheol and Haides doth understand no The soul in the N. T. is often put for the vital soul more but the Grave in page 110. And thus you see that Mr. Norton hath confounded his own Distinction The Hebrew Nephesh and the Greek Psuche
break and disanul the Law through Faith But to that he answereth We destroy not the Law though Faith but maintain further and stablish the Law that is to say we fulfill the Law through Faith Rom. 3. 31. and this Exposition he gives also in fol. 46. and in other placâ—s 8 Dr. Barns doth thus dispute with the Popish Bishops Then saith he came your overth wart Fathers and said to Paul thou Dr. Barns printed with Tindals works fol. 238. destroyest the Law and teachest that it justifieth not God forbid saith Paul we teach that the very way to fulfil the Law is Faith and without which all the works of the Law be but sin I could adde more Orthodox writers to this sense but because these that I have cited are no Babes in Divinity therefore I beleeve they will satisfie the judicious Reader of the true sense and that Mr. Nortons Exposition is a forced and erroneous Exposition From all the premises therefore I may well conclude That Mr. Norton hath not nor cannot infer a concluding Argument from Rom. 3. 31. to prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the essential punishment of the curse and therefore his ground-work of censuring the Dialogue of Heresie from this text may justly be returned upon his own head And now let the Judicious Reader judge betwixt us CHAP. IX His Answer to the point of Christs satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue Examined The sum of his Answer is drawn up into this Argument in p. 17. and it may be called his ninth Argument Such meritorious Mediatorly obedience as indebteth God in point of justice to remit thâ— just punishment of sin without any violation of justice nay with the establishment of justice must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as includes a suffering of justice But the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ is such a meritorious medatorly obedience whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin 1 Joh. 1. 9. without the violation of Justice Rom. 3. 26. Yea with the establishing of Justice Therefore the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such away of satisfaction unto Justice as includes also a suffering of Justice Reply IF I had met with this Argument in another Book wherein I had not been concerned I should have thought it but a silly Argument for neither the major minor nor Conclusion are without their faults 1 The Conclusion is faulty because it comes not up in terminis to what should be concluded and proved For the point of difference as it is stated by Mr. Norton but five lines before this Syllogism speaks thus You know that we affirm and defend that Christ suffered the wrath of God and that in a way of satisfaction unto divine Justice But in this Conclusion of his Syllogism there is never a word of Christs suffering the wrath of God But had he made his Conclusion so yet the Scriptures cited in the minor will not bear up such a Conclusion 2 His major is unsound for God may be indebted by the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ in point of justice The ground of satisfaction to Gods Justice ariseth from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant to remâ—t the just punishment of sin without any violation of Justice nay with the establishing of Justice and yet there is no necessity it should be done in such a way of satisfaction unto Justice as includes such a suffering of Justice as must be executed upon him from the vindicative wrath of God as he affirms from Gen. 2. 17. And the reason is so plain that he that runs may read it Namely because the ground of satisfaction to Justice ariseth not from the sufferings themselves as they were threatned to the sinner for his disobedience to the first Covenant but from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant wherein all the Trinity were equally Covenanters and all the Articles of that Covenant were positive Laws unto which as a voluntary Mediator he yeelded obedience as I have shewed in chap. 2. The Father propounded his Terms to the second person and the second person covenanted to do what he thought fit to accept and perform and the performance of that was accepted by the Father as fully satisfactory to his justice as payment in kind could have been He that doth voluntarily undertake to perform a combate Obedience performed to the Articles of a voluntary Covenant doth merit the prize with his opposite Champion in order to the voluntary Laws and Covenants that were made for the triall of Masteries if he did strive and overcome his opposite Champion according to those Laws did merit the prize by vertue of that free Covenant and free performance suppose it were for the redemption of Captives that he had deserved death Justice according to Covenant was as fully satisfied by this performance as if the Delinquent or the voluntary Surety in his place had suffered full punishment in kind Again take another instance of a voluntary Covenant a Pepper corn paid by a Tenant to his Landlord according to the conditions of a voluntary Covenant is current pay and satisfaction also though not under the notion of a valuable consideration yet under the notion of a voluntary bargain and Covenant mutually agreed to by both parties These instances shew that the ground of satisfaction to justice may arise as well from the voluntary cause as from the order of natural causes I hope none is so weak as to think that by this last instance I value Christs satisfaction to a pepper corn for his death and sacrifice was of infinite value in it self because it proceeded from his person that was infinite But it was therefore satisfactory because it was made satisfactory by the conditions of a voluntary Covenant and indeed nothing of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Ahab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21. â— for it as it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted
Annotations he saith thus The word Just in Greek is answerable to the Hebrew and signifies ordinarily works of Mercy and Charity of which when Maymonides sets down seven sorts or degrees the seventh is distinctly Righteousness or Justice and so Justice in Deut. 24. 13. both according to the context and the 70 is Mercy So when Rabbins say There are two Thrones the one of Judgement and the other of Mercy the latter is so stiled by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 4. 16. and so Psal 112. 9. he hath given to the poor and his righteousness i. e. his bounty to the poor So Isa 58. 7 8. and Mat. 6. 1. where the vulgar reading is justitiam and that for almes in that place Proportionable to these acceptions of the word saith he the righteousness of Joseph shall here signifie not strict legal Justice but peculiarly Goodness and Clemency in not bringing Mary to the capital punishment of stoning for her being with child according to the Law in Deut. 22. but he thought to put her away privately and so to keep the betrothing private that so she might suffer no more but infamy for Fornication In this point of clemency is Josephs justice commendable But on Rom. 3. 26. he saith thus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just signifieth one that is merciful or charitable as hath been shewed on Mat. 1. 19. and accordingly it may be observed that the word seldom in these books of the New Testament if ever belongs or is applied to the act of vindicative Justice But as there in the case of Joseph who would not offer his wife to legal punishment and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous for the abating of the rigor of exact Law and bringing in moderation or equity or mercy instead of it Accordingly saith he it is here to be resolved That this phrase being used of God That God may be just or righteous it must be understood to denote his mercy and goodness and clemency in pardoning and forgiving sins that being the thing looked on in the many foregoing expressions as our being justified freely by his grace in ver 24. The propitiatory ver 25. Gods righteousness i. e. his mercifull dealing with men under the second Covenant Verse 25 26. the remission of sins and forbearance Verse 25. And saith he the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just or righteous being so commonly taken in the notion of mercifulness and so seldom in this of vindicative Justice there is no reason to interpret it thus in this place Though this of Dr. Hamon do not fully accord to my former interpretation of Gods righteousness yet his reasons are very solid to shew that Gods Justice here is not to be taken as Mr. Norton doth for vindicative Justice Fourthly It is observable that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just is often put for one that is pious and merciful So the 70 put one that is pious for Tzedec justice in Isa 24. 16. and so also the Hebrew word Chesed mercy is put for one that is pious and just and therefore the Seventy do often render it Justice as in Gen. 19. 19. Gen. 20. 13. 21. 23. 24. 27. and in 49 see Ains 32. 10. Exod. 15. 13. 34. 7. Prov. 20. 28. Isa 63. 7. And the reason is plain because Justice moderated is Mercy And to this purpose also do our larger Annotations speak on Psal 22. 31. And saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 21. The demonstration of Gods revenging Justice springeth not from the necessity of his nature but from his voluntary disposition By these particulars I beleeve it will be evident to the Judicious that none of all the three Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his Assumption do prove it namely that Christ did satisfie Gods Justice by suffering his vindicative Justice And therefore the point of satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue is sound and good still notwithstanding all that Mr. Norton hath said or can say against it SECT 2. Mr. Nortons Answer to the several Scriptures cited by the Dialogue to prove the question stated Examined THe Dialogue saith thus in p. 2. Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole or in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things in all circumstances just according to the Predictions of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting in the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews That they had killed the Prince of life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fulfilled it So Act. 3. 17 18. Mr. Norton doth Answer thus This may include saith he but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Reply 1. He should have shewed that this Scripture did certainly include that Christ did suffer from Gods wrath especially seeing it i◠cited for a proof of the Question stated but I have often shewed that God hath shewed from all his Prophets from Gen. 3. 15. that God appointed Satan to set all his Instruments on work to persecute Christ and to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious and painful death as a Malefactor on the Cross to try if he could pervert him in the course of his obedience and so to hinder Christs death from being a perfect sacrifice by which means onely the Devils head-plot must be broken The second Scripture cited in the Dialogue is in Mat. 16. 21. Christ told his Disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mr. Norton Answers thus True Yet saith he Matthew doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God Reply 2. If Matthew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That hee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers These words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24. 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13.
by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to affâ—ct him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the righteousnesse of God cannot bee meant of the righteousnesse of Christ in this Text to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction de Reconc Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5 6. SECT II. 2 I Will now labour to shew the true sense of this Text by which it will appear that Mr. Nortons comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text each clause in the Text lies thus 1 For This word For is a causal particle and implies for this cause 2 He namely God the Father 3 Made that is to say Ordained Constituted Appointed but this could not bee without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity and so he was ordained or constituted to bee made a curse by his combating with Sathan as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him that is to say Christ These two words He and Him in the former part of this verse and God and Him in the latter part of this verse must carefully bee marked as a cleer distinction between the persons as I have also noted above 5 To bee sin for us that is to
and by 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification doth shew from the judgement of the orthodox that nothing in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is there spoken touching the imputation In Vindiciae fidei part 2. pag. 165. of our sins to Christ and saith he of all the Scriptures that men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observed that this Text is most cleer and pregnant against themselves But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. The Sin offering is so called because sin was typically imputed to it and it is said saith he to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin Reply 2. Mr. Norton affirms it was called sin because sin was typically imputed to it but he brings no Scripture to prove it and therefore it must passe for no better than a fiction 2 The Dialogue shews in page 41. that Psal 40. 6. doth call the Sin-offering by no other addition but Sin but the Dialogue saith that the Apostle in Greek doth expound it for sin in Heb. 10. 6. the Apostle doth joyn the particle For to the word Sin by which means hee doth teach us that the Sin-offering was not typically made sin by confession of sin and by imposition of hands upon the head of it the particle For is not suitable to that sense and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self by joying the word For to the word Sin The Sin shall be killed before the Lord it is most holy Lev. 6. 25. and then it is explained in verse 26. The Priest shall offer it for Sin hence I reason thus if it had been made sin typically by Gods imputation it Lev. 6. 26. could not have been called Most holy neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin Lev. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Lev. 9. 15. Lev. 4. 14. But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of Purification and the Trespass mony is called Sin then Christ was made sin only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 3. A byassed spirit is apt to pick an exception against the cleerest expressions the Dialogue speaks plainly that the water of Purification was called Sin Numb 19. 9. not in respect of any sin that was typically imputed to it nor was it called Sin because it was imployed to any sinful use but because it was ordained in the prescript use of it to cleanse the sinner ex opere operato from all such ceremonial sins as he was defiled with See Ains in Num. 19. 9 12. c. it was called Sin-water as the Sin-offering was called Sin because it was the water of Purification from sin and because it sanctified the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Num. 8. 7 21. and because it figured the blood of Christ which only purgeth the conscience from dead works that is to say from moral sins Heb. 9. 13 14. Now the Heb. 9 13 14. Argument of the Dialogue is plain namely that as the water of purification was called Sin because it did truly cleanse the sinner from the outward contagion of his sins whether moral sins that were done unadvisedly or ceremonial sins for which chiefly the Sin-water was ordained that being cleansed therby they might then approach to Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else not upon pain of cutting off Num. 19. 20. The like Reply I might also make for the Levitical phrase taken from the Redemption-mony that was imployed or part of it at least to buy the publick Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. not because any sin or trespasse was imputed to the mony as if it had been sinfully gotten or sinfully imployed but because it was imployed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings and in this sense God made Christ to be sin and to be a trespasse not by imputing the sins of the Elect to him in a judicial way but by ordaining and constituting him to be the true Sin-offering and to end all Sin-offerings and to finish Trespasse offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousnesse or Reconciliation Dan. 9. 24. instead of the Ceremonial Secondly saith Mr. Norton Then Christ was only made sin figuratively and suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 4. Christ suffered for sin properly according to Gods declared Counsel Covenant and Decree in Gen. 3. 15. in entring the Lists with Sathan but at last hee was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice and in this Sin-offering he bare our sins not really by Gods judicial imputation but figuratively only he bare them from us by procuring Gods Reconciliation No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton doth make Christ to be a sinner properly But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. Wee distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt and an extrinsecal judicial guilt If Thomas saith he be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case of Suretiship to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime And after these words Mr. Norton doth cite sundry instances to this purpose and at last he concludes thus in page 133. I dare almost say saith Grotius a man excelling in this kind of learning That where there is consent there is not any of those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should bee punished with the delinquencie of another Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nayl home on the head and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning and truly so hee was though I find him to be very much out of the way in some things But in vain doth Mr. Norton labour to make Grotius his abettor for surely there is no greater opposite to Mr. Nortons imputation than he is For Grotius saith thus Some evil is sometimes imposed upon one or In his War Peace l. 2. c. 112 p. 398. some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault yet not so that the fault is the immediate cause of that action as to the right of doing He saith he who by occasion of anothers debt hath ingaged himself suffers evil Sponde Nâ—xâ— praesto est But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise as hee who is become surety for a buyer is not properly bound by the bargain but by his promise So also hee who is bound for a Delinquent is not held by the delinquency but by his ingagement And hence it is that the evil to bee born by him receives its measure not from the fault of the
even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Nortons legal Surety as a free Redeemer is from a delinquent Surety 8 Hence it follows also that in Grotius judgement there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters and a Surety in criminal cases but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction or else hee would never have brought the instance of Pauls ingaging to Philemon verse 18. to exemplifie Christs obligation to his Philemon v. 11 punishments 9 Hence it follows That though a man may lay down his life for others as voluntary Sureties in divers cases as Mr. Weams shews in his four Degenerations page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late dayes only The Reader that pleaseth may bee fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholick Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Irenaeus Anno Christ 180. untill Bernard who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation seeing they differ from him as much as truth doth from error Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon pec part 2. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds and yet hee doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held If saith he any man say That by accounting Christ a sinner they mean no more but that God deals with him as if he did account him to be a sinner this though it be true would not avail them for thereby they overthrow the foundation that they laid That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin except hee were first made guilty of our sins such an imputation of our sins to Christ I think no Divine will deny I am sure saith hee it hath warrant enough from the Fathers And in Sect. 11. he cites some of the Fathers speaking thus He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner and to dye as one accursed For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Chrysost in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Theophilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith He made him subject to death for us and to dye as if hee had been a notorious offender And saith he in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture for whereas it is said in Isa 53. 12. Isa 53. 12. Hee was numbred with the Transgressors This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying and it sheweth mens dealing with him and not Gods opinion of him And with him they crucified two Theeves the one on his right hand and the other on his left and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 27 28 And saith he in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines than that hee took on him to expiate for our sins by his blood and sacrifice according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore wee may conclude that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might bee a sacrifice for sin or dye as a sinner although our sins were not so imputed to him that God accounted him to be guilty of them And saith he in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear because his sacrifice was such as might bee without such imputation for it was the price of our Redemption as I shewed in part 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5 6. But there may well be and ordinarily is Redemption by a price without any kind of imputation And you may also see what hee speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton the Judicious may please to take notice that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture than such as he hath cited out of Chrysostome and Theophilact 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the wrirings of the Ancient Fathers 3 Let me adde this Testimony of Mr. Wotton both from my own knowledge and from the testimony of other eminent Christians that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity one that suffered much for Christ through the iniquity of the times a man of great reading in all kind of Writers both Ancient and Modern and a man of deep judgement And his book of Reconciliation was printed in his old age after much debate and study and revising and therefore what hee saith in this point of imputation ought not and will not bee slighted of the Judicious The wise will understand 4 Hence it follows That the Reader that pleaseth may yet bee more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius that this affirmation of Mr. Wottons is a manifest truth namely That our sins were no otherwise imputed to Christ but as hee bare our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus because as I perceive by several Writers Socinus denied Christs sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christs satisfaction 6 On the other hand I do also beleeve that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as hee did Socinus Tenent for I have shewed in my former Reply that Grotius held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 83. 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quite contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to
the salvation of all the Elect. But thirdly Observe this that I do not say that the sufferings of Christ which hee indured from the malice of Satan and his instruments were full satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death but on the contrary I say that no sufferings though never so great can make satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death by the separation of his soul from his body by his own Priestly power and therefore if it could be supposed that Christ had born the moral curse of Hell-torments according to Mr. Nortons Tenent for a thousand yeers together on the Cross yet without this his last Priestly act of death and sacrifice it could not have been a sufficient price for our redemption and the reason thereof is most cleer and evident because God had ordained by his eternal Councel and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that nothing should be accepted for full satisfaction to break the Devils Head-plot without the true bodily death of the seed of the woman made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9. 14 25 26 28. Heb. 10. 9 10 12. Fourthly Yet I grant notwithstanding that all his sufferings from Satan and his instruments were ordained for the trial of All Christs sufferings were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice his obedience and so for his consecration to his Priestly Sacrifice and in that respect it was as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to the making of a sacrifice under the Law I say that both his consecration by his ignominious usage and by his long lingring tortures on the Cross and the formality of his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power must be considered as two distinct Articles of the eternal Covenant though they must also be conjoyned for the making of that sacrifice that God covenanted to accept for Heb 2. 10. Heb. 59. Joh. 19. 30. The sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power See also further in Reply 13. mans redemption his sufferings as a Martyr from the malice of Satan was ordained for the trial of his perfect obedience and so consequently for the perfecting of his Priestly consecration as these Scriptures do witness Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 8 9. Heb. 7. 28. And when Moses put the blood of consecration on Aarons right Ear Thumb and great Toe it figured saith Ains on Lev. 8. 24. the sufferings of Christ whose hands and feet were peirced and then as soon as his consecration was finished which was finished by finishing all the sufferings that were written of him then hee declared the same by saying It is finished Joh. 19. 30. And then at the same instant without any delay he first bowed his head and then he made his life a sacrifice by giving up the ghost and this was in a differing order from that death that comes by the course of nature for by the course of nature men do hold up the head as long as life is in the body and then as soon as the soul is departed the head falls but Christ while he was in the strength of nature did first bow his head and then hee gave up the ghost And thus he performed his death as the Mediator of the New Covenant by his own Priestly power in both his natures according to the eternal Covenant And in this last act by vertue of the said eternal Covenant lyes 1 The formality of his death 2 The formality of his sacrifice And 3 The formality of all satisfaction Heb. 9. 14 15 16. And therefore from hence it necessarily follows that till this last act was done no sufferings that went before though he be supposed by Mr. Norton to have suffered the essential torments of Hell though never so long and never so strong could bee accounted of God for satisfaction for mans Redemption Fifthly All this was made manifest to fallen Adam by Gods declared decree in Gen. 3. 15. as I have formerly noted and I think it needful to repeat it again with some inlargement 1 God proclaimed an utter enmity between Christ the seed of the Woman and the Devil in the Serpent and in all other instruments of his malice 2 Hee told the Devil that hee might arm himself as well as hee could that the seed of that deceived Woman should break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to all the positive Laws of the combate notwithstanding his foul play and his malicious stratagems to disturb him in the course of his obedience 3 Hee told the Devil that hee should have full liberty to use him as a vilde Malefactor and at last to peirce him in the foot-soals on the Cross to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to hinder his death from being a sacrifice of satisfaction if he could In this manner I say God declared the plotform of the eternal counsel and Covenant of the Trinity for mans redemption and therefore whatsoever is spoken after this of the Messiah and of the work of Redemption it must have reference to this first declaration for all that is spoken after this is but a comment upon this and all Christs sufferings are included in these two words 1. He shall be the seed of the woman and he shall be touched both inwardly with the feeling of our infirmities in all his voluntary passions Secondly Outwardly Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And hence it is plain that all his outward sufferings 〈◊〉 to be from Satan and his instruments and all his inward sufferings from himself These things are so plain in the Text that he that runs may read them and these soul-passions with his outward sufferings were also ordained to consecrate Christ to his Priestly Office before he could make his soul a sacrifice Thirdly Therefore the formality of Christs obedience in his death and sacrifice must needs be the period of all satisfaction and this is the last victorious act of the Mediators obedience that gives the fatal blow to the Devils head-plot and breaks it all to peeces so that the Elect are thereby delivered from his power as a bird from the Fowler when the snare is broken and all the positive ceremonial Laws touching Priest and sacrifice are but a typical exemplification of this Priest and sacrifice Fourthly Hence we may learn how to interpret all those God did all the external sufferings of Christ by Satan and his instruments and Christ did all his internal soul-sufferings Scriptures that ascribe all Christs sufferings both inward and outward to God God is often said to be a doer of them all but this first Declaration of Gods counsel to Adam tells us that God did all by appointing Satan to
to yeeld up for him as Origen See also Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Mark 10. 45. Rev. 18. 14. 4 Psyche in the New Testament doth signifie for the most part the same that Nephes doth in the Old But saith Carlile in three places it signifies the immortal soul as in Mat. 10. 27 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. And saith hee This kind of soul was that soul of Christ that was so exceeding sorrowful in Mat. 26. 38. By nature saith Carlile in page 155. All the parts of my body wherein there is any life do fear death my will is unwilling A true description of the natural fear of death my mind vexed my affections moved my heart is wounded my members shake my breast panteth my legs saint my hands tremble and my senses are amazed And saith hee The flesh of Christ was so troubled that hee desired if it were possible that he might escape death Mat. 26. 38 Mar. 14 34. Job 12. 27. 2 Mr. Wilmot renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 26. 38. Mat. 26. 38. which we translate exceeding sorrowful by rounded about with sorrow for fear of his approaching ignominious death hee was rounded about in every part of his body according to the description above from Carlile and so David saith of his fear The sorrows of death compassed me about Psal 18. 5. And by Psal 18. 5. this expression it appears that hee was in every part of his sensitive soul blood and flesh in a quaking fear Mr. Ainsworth doth render it the pangs of death or the pains throws and sorrows as of a woman in child-birth and so doth the original signifie in Hos 13. 13 Isa 13. 8. Isa 66. 7. And so doth the Chaldee explain it Anguish compassed mee as of a woman which sitteth in the birth and hath no strength to bring forth being in danger of death Methinks these emphatical expressions of the feat of a bodily death should check such as sleight them that expound the fear of Christ of his exceeding natural fear of his bodily death 3 When our Saviour at Supper told his Disciples that one of them should betray him they were exceeding sorrowful Mat 26. 21 22. namely they were in every part of their body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surrounded about with sorrows and Christ doth compare their sorrows for his death to the pangs of a woman in travel Joh. 16. 20 21 22. The Greek word in verse 22. and in verse 38. iâ— the same and the Syriak doth translate them alike and Tremelius doth translate the Syriack in both places with the same Latine word So that the natural fear of an ignominious violent death doth extend it self to every part of the vital soul and body SECT IV. But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. His sorrow was lethal and deadly both extensively and intensively continuing unto the last gaspe intensively killing of it self in time had there been no other causes resolving and melting the soul gradually as wax is melted with the heat Psal 22. 14. Reply 15. In these words Mr. Norton doth make Christs body to be subject to death by natural causes not only externally Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly because they were governed by right reason but also internally from his soul-sorrows as if he might now lose the rectitude of his own pure humane affections His heart indeed according to his voluntary Covenant to undertake our nature and passions did melt for fear of his ignominious and painful death in the midst of his bowels in his preparation to incounter it in the Garden but after a while by his strong crying and tears hee did overcome that fear and obtained a confirmation of his nature against his natural fear But I wonder how Mr. Norton can say as hee doth often that Christs sorrows were lethal and deadly and continuing to the last gasp seeing all his affections were regular and conformed to right reason can regular affections admit of such a kind of sorrow without sin I think not and yet I conceive that the measure of regular sorrow may bee so great that it cannot well be expressed by us otherwise than in the Scripture phrases which must not bee stretched by the conceptions of men beyond the context But to affirm that the kind of his sorrow was lethal and deadly of it self is as much as to say it was excessive and beyond the rule of right reason which must needs be sinful and it is worse to say that his lethal sorrows continued to the last And therefore Mr. Nortons kind of reasoning is most dangerous All Christs affections saith Martyr were in him voluntary they did rise in him when he pleased to shew them and they appeared not when he pleased to suppress them but in us saith he they are often involuntary and rise in us whether we will or no. But saith Mr. Norton in page 88. Christ was amazed He began to be sore amazed Mark 14. 33. which signifieth an universal cessation of all the saculties of the Mar. 14. 33. soul from their several functions Physicians call it a Horripilation wee usually a Consternation like a Clock in kiltor yet stopped for the while from going by some hand laid upon it That such intermission of the operations of his soul the effect of this formidable Concussion might be without sin is evident to him that remembers Christ slept sleep ordinarily implying cessation of the exercise of the intellectual faculties Reply 16. The word translated Amazed saith hee signifies an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from Christ was not fully amazed their several functions I acknowledge that the signification of the original is of necessary use for the right expounding of the blessed Scriptures provided the original word be not stretched to a sense beyond the context or else there is great danger of abusing the Scripture to an erronious sense as I have formerly noted from the large signification of Sheol and Hades in Chap. 7. and from Nasa and Sabel in Chap. 11. And the like I must say of this Greek word Ethambeisthai For 1 Ethambesen is used by the Septuagint in 1 King 14. 15. to express the sense of the Hebrew word Ragaz to root namely to root up Israel out of that good land 2 The Septuagint put Thambos for a dead sleep namely for that dead sleep that was fallen upon Saul and his men when their senses were so bound up that they could not awake 1 Sam. 26. 1â— 3 The Septuagint put Thamboumenos to express the sense of Pâ—ohaz for light headed or inconstant persons in Judges 9. 4. This Hebrew word saith Ainsworth in Gen. 49. 4. doth signifie unstable or light and soon moved And this word saith he is alwayes used in the evil part Zeph. 3. 4. Jer. 23. 32. These three senses considered who dares say that is well advised that this Greek word Ethambeisthai in Mark 14. 33. ought
how Christ hath divided the spoil as David did when he conquered the Amalekites 1 Sam. 30. and this dividing of the spoyl is always done with joy for the victory as in Judg. 5. 30. Luk. 11. 22. These and such like Sciptures do fully declare unto us wherein the true nature of Christs agony doth consist namely in his combate with his ignominious answer from his malicious combater Satan both his inward agony in the Garden when he was surrounded with great fear and with great heaviness it was in relation to his outward agony by his combate of sufferings from Satan on the cross and also the true nature of his conquest is set out by that victorious weapon of righteousness his constant and exact patience and obedience and no Scripture doth mention his sufferings to be from Gods Judgement seat in the way of legal proceedings from Gods immediate wrath though the Devil took that course to make him a legal sinner before Pilats judgement seat 3 The Devil having had this open warning by Gods proclamation of an utter enmity namely that the seed of the woman should by his patience and obedience under all the difficulties of the combate break his head-plot he took the warning and therefore he neglected no time but took the very first opportunity to disturb the patience and to spoil the obedience of the seed of the woman even as soon as ever he was intrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office which was done at his baptism and then Christ also was led by the Spirit of God that annointed him and installed him with gifts for his Office into the wilderness on purpose to try Masteries with the Devil and there the Devil continued to tempt him by all the sleights he could devise for forty daies together and because he could not prevail in those forty days therefore when the said forty days were ended he grew to be more desperate than formerly in his temptations and according to the grant of his power which was unlimited over the body of Christ he took it up and carried it aloft to the Air and set it upon the top of the Pinacle of the Temple and truly it is no marvel that the Divine nature would suffer his Humane nature to be carried about by the Devil seeing he suffered Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his baptism when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cross his humane nature to be crucified by him But still the Devil lost his labor because Christs obedience was unconquerable for by his patience and obedience he resisted the Devil in all his temptations and after the Devil had spent his skill in these three notable temptations he is said to leave him for a season Luk. 4. 14. but it was but for a short season for in vers 16. when our Savior came to Nazaret where he had been brought up he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read and at last he said thus to them No Prophet is accepted in his own Country vers 24. And then all in the Synagogue when they heard these things were filled with wrath for the Devil did now provoke their corrupt natures thereto and they rose up and thrust him out of the City and led him to the brow of the hill that they might cast him down headlong vers 28 29. and ever after continually the Devil did nothing else but raise up most vild slanderous accusations against him and often moved the Pharisees to take him and put him to death 4 The Devil did yet more eagerly enter the lists with Christ at his last Supper and so on to the Garden for at his last supper he said thus to his Disciples Hereafter I will not talk much with you for the Prince of this world commeth Joh. 14. 30. For just now Joh. 14. 30. he hath taken away Judas from our society to fetch a Band of armed men from the High-Priests to apprehend me as a sinful malefactor and therefore I fore-tel you that the Prince of this world commeth now to assault me more fiercely than ever heretofore So that hereafter I cannot talk much with you as now I do Of which more hereafter But because Mr. Norton doth make this Agony of Christ to be his conflicting passions with his Fathers vindicative wrath therefore it is needful ere we go any further to examine such Scriptures as are brought for the proof of it 1. The first Scripture I will begin with is in Mat. 26. 31. This Scripture hath been objected to me by some of note to prove Matth. 26 31. that God himself did smite Christ the Shepherd of the sheep by his immediate vindicative wrath The context lies thus When Christ was at Supper with his Disciples his true humane nature was much exercised with the thought of his ignominious and cruel usage which Satan was ready to bring upon him as it appears by his speeches to his Disciples All ye said he shall be offended because of me this night For it is written I will smite the Shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered Matth. 26. 31. This I hath been expounded to me by some of note to be God and so it is but withall they expound it to be Gods smiting of Christs soul with his immediate wrath But this I deny for these words must be expounded from Zach. 13. 7. and then the case will be altered Zach. 13. 7. for the words in Zachary runs thus Smite thou the shepherd there the word Thou is put for the word I in Matthew and this difference is observed by Mr. Ainsworth in his preface to Genesis so that in Zachary God saith to Satan smite thou the Shepherd Smite him as a sinful malefactor and spare not do thy worst to disturb his patience c. God speaks thus to Satan in Zachary just as he did in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt peirce the seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a wicked malefactor Weigh the whole Text in Zachary which runs thus Awake O Sword against my Shepherd That is to say rouse up thy self O Satan and bring a band of men armed with swords and staves against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow as we see he did in Mat. 26. 47. Smite thou the shepherd for I have given thee full liberty without any restraint to use thy best skill to make him a sinful malefactor and to smite him as a sinful malefactor that thou mayst disturb his patience if thou canst and so mayst make him a transgressor as thou didst Adam Or it may be read at it is in Matthew I will smite the shepherd For I God have given Satan full liberty to smite him that I may see the proof of his patience and obedience And in this form of speech God is said to afflict Job and therefore Job said The Lord hath
respect he is denominated to be the Mediator of the New Testament through that transcendent kind of death Heb. 9. 14 15 16. A brief Reply to Mr. Nortons Charge of Heresie For out of his Heterodoxal Tenents he doth charge Heresie upon the Dialogue 1 For denying the Imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. Isa 53. 5 6. Reply THe Dialogue doth indeed deny the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in that new upstart formal legal manner by imputing sin and inflicting punishments after the manner of the proceedings of legal Courts of Justice as Mr. Norton holds But it doth not deny but approve of the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in the sense of the Ancient Divines and in the sense of Mr. Wotton for in this point of Imputation Mr. Wotton follows the sense of the Ancient Divines and the Dialogue doth approve and follow Mr. Wottons sense as I have shewed in Chap. 14. whose memory will be blessed where the truth prevails in this point namely That Christ bare our sins in his body on the Tree as the Dialogue hath rightly expounded 1 Pet. 2. 24. namely our punishments as our voluntary combating Surety against Satan according to Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. Luke 1. 74. Heb. 2. 14 15. 1 Joh. 3. 8. and not as our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton holds 2 As for the several Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his corrupt sense I have expounded them in their right sense with the concurrence of several Orthodox Writers Therefore you may see that he hath wrested the sense of the blessed Scriptures to prove his corrupt Tenent therefore his charge of Heresie is but a paper shot and a deep Charge of Error may justly be retorted And whereas hee hath published another book called The Orthodox Evangelist wherein he hath asserted the same Tenents upon the same grounds that he hath done in his Answer to the Dialogue This Reply which I have made in this Book will serve to prove that the said high Title is an erroneous and misleading Title and therefore it will advise the Reader to search better into the truth His second Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our Surety contrary to Gal. 4. 4 5. Mat. 5. 17 18. Heb. 10. 7. compared with Psal 40. 7. 8. and Rom. 3. 31. Reply I have Re-vindicated all these Scriptures from his unsound sense and expounded them in a right sense with the concurrence and approbation of the Orthodox in Chap. 3. and elswhere and therefore this charge of Heresie doth also vanish as a mist before the Sun His third Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto Justification contrary to Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. 19. and Phi. 3. 9. Reply I have also fully Re-vindicated these Scriptures from his unsound sense and given the Reader the true sense and so this charge of Heresie may more justly be retorted to the giver thereof For the Curse that is causless shall not come on the innocent Prov. 26. 2. But it will return to the giver thereof according to Psal 109. 17 31. 2 By the Table of chief Heads and by the Table of Scriptures annexed the Reader may please to search out the several pages where the said several Scriptures are Re-vindicated from Mr. Nortons false glosses and there he shall find the genuine sense of them clearly discovered 3 Hence the five Divines that subscribed the Letter aâ— the end of Mr. Nortons Book may see their great unadvisedness in joyning with Mr. Norton to condemn the precious truth of the blessed Scriptures for Herefie and to approve of his perverted sense 4 I will now conclude with a reference to Lev. 4. 13 14. where a Church a Synod and a Court of Elders and Magistrates may see that they are sometimes subject to Error in the things of God and therefore they as well as persons of a lower capacity had need to watch and pray and to study daily and earnestly that God would guide their judgements unto the sound understanding and righteous preserving of the truth of his blessed Scriptures Amen The Wise will understand Dan. 12. 10. Austin Cont. Faust saith I pass not for the censures of such as dare to reprehend what they do not Comprehend FINIS Errata Reader Take notice that the first Figures stands for the Page and the second for the Line Page 23 line 23 blot out Now it remains to be expounded 40 11 r. granted 40 16 r. sinning 50 10 r. by the Ordinances 95 25 r. affect 113 14 r. Naboth 118 10 r. Wotton 130 28 blot out He. 145 10 for 25 r. 103. 148 10 r. this 161 18 r. obrogate ibid. 22 r. that he shall not have ib. 25 r. Wotton 164 10 r. this 175 17 r. to act according to Physical causes in his moral obedience and natural actions as the Dialogue doth reason in p. 111. l 31 and as it is opened in c. 17. Rep. 11 in c. 3. 176 26. for Psal r. page 178 33 r. Is 53. 5 10. 186 81 c 6. 192 8 r. 152 153 c. 193 19 blot out made 196 38 r. Goat Bucks 206 ult r. patience and obedience 21 11 r. saith he 223 16 r. Wotton 232 from this page for 9 pages together is false pâ—ged make all these 9 pages 233. then the pages following are right 234 16 r p. 119 238 32 r. statute 141 29 r. disposition and Rutherfurd on the Covenant doth at large concur with Mr. Ball 243 4 r. chiefly 248 13 blot out but r. and yet not be one person 252 13 r. this phrase of the Septuagint the Apostle c. 252 15 after fully purged add compare herewith also Heb. 9 22 23. 258 23 r. Christs body 259. 35 blot out it is in the same verses r. the word Attonement is also explained by c. 263 38. r. both of his sufferings and of his death and sacrifice 266 2 r. his Argument 273. 28. blot out And r. The only reason 275. 11 r. was to cover and hide 275 28 r. themselves to Baal peor 282 19 r. groundless phantasies 295 15. for disease r. curse of evil 299 31 r. distaste 307 13 r. alone 309 9 r. this last Priestly act of his death 311 â—7 r propounded 323 26 r. Ekthambeâ—sthai and so in p. 324 327 323 1 r. to the last gasp seeing he had got a confirmation against his sorrows by his prayers in the Garden 326 25 r. but Christs perfections could not be disturbed with that disorderly hasty fear as they were in 2 King 7. 15. 335 25 add thus 339 21 r. Consecrator 344. 31 r. Joh. 10. 11. 345 12 r. usage 362 5 r. propounded 363 14 r. patients 368 17 blot out which 371 in the Marginal note r. Azab hath not two 373 39 r. Exod. 23 5. 385 39 r. tryed 386 26 r. against me 395 6 r. because he haâ—h not hid 415 2 blot out to 427 20. r. derided by ib. 37 r. therefore 428 28 r. else 430 29 r. thing 432 34 r. sanctification of merit but not that of the Spirit Other faults there be which the Reader may mend