a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spiritual and eternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked malefactors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Phi. 2. 9 10 11. Es 5 3 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4. 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood-shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hee gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that
3. and then it follows in ver 4. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us or Rom. 8 4. that the Justification of the Law may be fulfilled in us as Tremelius and the Syriack and the vulgar Latin do translate the Greek word Dicaioma that is here used But here it may be demanded what kind of Righteousness or Justification of the Law doth Dicaioma mean should be fulfilled in us The Answer is Not the righteousness of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret this Text in p. 233. but the righteousness that was typified by the positive Ordinances of the ceremonial Law for the Greek word here used is not Dicaiosune which is the largest word for all kind of righteousness but Dicaioma which is more restrained to the positive Ordinances and which in proper English doth signifie the just Ordinance or the righteous estate of the Law namely either of the Ceremonial or Judicial Laws but especially of the Ceremonial Laws as Mr. Ainsworth sheweth in Numb 31. 21. in Gen. 26. 5. in Deut. 4. 1 14. and in Psal 2. 7. 2 This is the true interpretation of Dicaioma as it is further evident because the Apostle doth use this word to describe the nature of their legal justifications of divine Service in Heb. 9. 1. 10. which he calls carnal justifications in vers 10 as Mr. Dickson and others have well observed 3 This word is also used by the Septuagint for the righteous making of things as well as of persons that were ceremonially unclean for no dead things or unreasonable creatures are guilty of moral sins but by Gods positive Ordinance they may bee guilty of Ceremonial sins Numb 31. 19 20 21 22 23 24. 4 Hence it follows That this kind of positive ceremonial righteousness was typical to such as had faith in the observation of these Statutes to look from the typical ordinances of cleansing and righteous making to the positive sacrifice of Christ as the perfection of all the typical cleansings for that only was ordained to procure Gods eternal Reconciliation in not imputing sin for the cleansing of the conscience from moral sins therefore such as did thus keep the Statutes and Ordinances of Righteousness as Zachary and Elizabeth did Luke 1. 6. should obtain thereby an everlasting Righteousness in Gods sight instead of the Ceremonial And this Doctrine is cleerly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24 25. I say from these â—erses it is plain that their outward Deut. 6. 24 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes did make them righteous or justifie their bodies as fit persons for Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary and for feasting with him as their attoned God in Covenant on the flesh of their Passovers and Peace-offerings and so it typifies true justification and therefore their careful doing of these typical Ordinances had an outward blessing promised as to persons that were outwardly justified as well as they which had faith in Christ had the promise of Gods Reconciliation for their eternal justification 5 This word Dicaioma is used by the Septuagint to express their outward righteousness or justification by their exact care in observing the positive judicial Laws of Moses And for this also see Ainsworth in Exod. 21. 1. Num. 15. 15. But as I said before it is chiefly applyed to the positive Statuâ—es that concerned Gods worship in his Sanctuary and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chiefly respect their judicial trials about their Ceremonial righteousness and their justification thereby in his Sanctuary as these places do evidence in all which the Septuagint use the word Dicaioma for that kind of righteousness chiefly as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25 26. Lev. 25. 18. Numb 27. 11. Numb 30. 16. Numb 31. 21. Deut. 4. 1 5 8 14 40 45. Deut. 5 1 37. Deut. 6. 1 2 17 20 24 25. 2 King 17. 13 34 37. Psal 18. 22. Psal 50. 16. Psal 98. 31. Psal 105. 45. Psal 119. 5 8 12 16 23 33 48 54 71 80 112 117 135 145 155 171. Psal 47. 19. and Ezek. 26. 37. 6 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Justification in Rom. 5. 16. and that most fitly because it doth in Rom. 5. 16. that place set out the true nature of our eternal justification in Gods sight by his gracious forgiveness as being the truth of their legal and typical justifications for the Apostle doth reason here about justification in the same manner as hee did in Heb. 9. for there hee reasons thus If saith hee the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying or justifying of the flesh namely by procuring Gods Attonement as I have explained the matter a little before then saith hee How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works namely by obtaining Gods Attonement for your moral sins as it is the truth of the typical justification And just after this sort doth the Apostle reason in Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness Rom. 5. 16. is of many offences to justification The tongue of Angels cannot express the true nature and form of our eternal justification plainer than in the words of this 16. verse but for further light I will cite Tindals Translation thus And the gift is not over one sin as death came through one sin of one that sinned For damnation came of one sin to condemnation but the gift came to justifie from many sins 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. By the Rightoousness of one namely by the righteousness of Christ in obeying Gods positive Law and Covenant by making his soul a Sin-offering as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this
of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adams means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a
de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is â—n effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de facto are not Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam till it please God to make
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
Moses in his exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here with the like exhortations to the Judges to cleanse the land from moral defilements by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners which else would defile the whole land yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice and to toâ—lerate moral sinners See Lev. 18 24 25 27 28. Num. 35. 31 32 33. Psal 1 c 6. 38. Ezra 9. 11. Jer. 3. 1 2 9. Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal 24. 5. c. But it came to pass that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed and then the land was cleansed for by this act of justice though he was no Magistrate yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way to execute the office of a Magistrate hee is said to make Attonement or to reconcile God to the whole land Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33 39. These and such like instances do evidence that the Judges as they were the Representatives of the whole land might defile the whole land and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners in case they did connive at them and not execute impartial justice upon them And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to bee to bury the body before Sun-set that the land bee not defiled On the contrary when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of Gods wrath and to make Attonement for the Land O that this Exhortation of Moses might sit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates both supreme and inferiour to execute impartial justice against moral sinners that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of Gods wrath and that the land by their neglect might not be defiled And O that people would rightly use their liberty when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates to chuse such as fear God and hate sin 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law I wonder therefore at Mr. Nortons unadvisedness in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land in case hee was not buried before Sun-set I grant that he or any other might bee deceived in their judgement by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition as I have shewed before but the right translation as it was in the first Editions will not afford any such Tenent if the Context be well weighed 2 I grant that a great part of the people might bee ceremonially defiled yea at sometime the greatest part but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins as Ains sheweth in Num. 9. 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved which cannot be that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person or by some one act then I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land as well as for particular persons and places for doubtlesse God would not bee wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person for hee that touched a dead person though hee dyed in his bed yea though hee were truly godly in his life time was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree and he that touched any dead person in the day time was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law as hee that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sun-set and hee that touched but the limb of a dead child was as much defiled as he that touched a whole dead child all that touched the dead though never so many were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness untill they had cleansed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19. 11 15 16 c. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged to hang on the tree after Sun-set the whole land could not be defiled therby unless every person in the land did come one by one to touch his dead carkass which is absurd to think they would do and yet it must be done in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactors carkass unburied after Sun-set And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws is very short of what it ought to be or else he would never have broached this fiction 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sun-set did not defile the land ceremonially see also n. 2. for David according to the desire of the Gibeonites which was ordered doubtless according to Gods special positive direction commanded that seven of Sauls sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree and to continue hanging so long as until God should manifest himself to be attoned and reconciled to the Land by sending rain to remove the present famine for there was a famine in the dayes of David three years together And David inquired of the Lord and the Lord answered It is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 1. therefore David said to the Gibeonites in verse 3. What shall I do for you and wherewith shall I make the Attonement that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord They answered to the King in verse 5. doubtless by some special voluntary positive command from God Let seven of his sâ—ns be delivered to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord namely to appease the Lords wrath that was so justly provoked by Sauls sin against the whole land for Saul was the Representative of the whole land and therefore he ought to have protected and not killed the innocent Gibeonites as he had done out of his furious zeal by which notorious moral sin of his he defiled the whole land But by the hanging of his seven sons on a tree for many dayes together the land was cleansed from
in sin and Sathans malice if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government And secondly It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam and all his elect posterity from this desperate Head-plot of Sathan and from this miserable death of sin thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure or else if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence there had been no room left for the manifestation of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed for till the time of Gods gracious manifestation Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of Gods vindicative threatning but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him there-from for God said thus by way of threatning to the devil The Seed of that Woman whom thou hast deceived shall break thy Head-plot by his death and sacrifice and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to peirce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his patience nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice and by this means shall thy cunning Head-plot be broken in peeces and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken Now to bring this work of Redemption to passe a double change must be wrought in fallen man by the Mediation of this Promised Seed 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration 2 A change of our present state from being the children of wrath by nature to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption 1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration 1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good which is done but in part whiles we live in this world through the Word and Spirit For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration as I said is done but in part for as long as we live in this world this body of sin doth still in part remain and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here 2 The full degree of our Regeneration is not till the day of the general Resurrection and then all those that have been in part regenerated here shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here to fit them for that full Regeneration for without such a change of our corrupt nature by death flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption 1 Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect saith Christopher Carlisle the Resurrection is called by Christ A Regeneration a new Birth a Renovation a In his Treatise of Christs descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead a Restitution from above Matth. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate and in part sanctified here must suffer a bodily death that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body as well as in soul and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality 1 Cor. 15 53. Ph. 3. 21. Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in ordaining a bodily death for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after namely in vers 19. which is but four verses after the promise tell beleeving Adam as he was the head of mans corrupt nature in general Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return And thus from the order of time when this threatning was denounced It follows 1 That a bodily death was not denounced untill after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break the Devils Head-plot by purchasing a new Nature and a new Paradise for Adam and as many else of his posterity as did beleeve in the Promised Seed but this threatning of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and dye in the unbeleef of the Promised Seed for when God did first appoint a bodily death he did then also appoint a day of Judgement as Heb. 9. 27. doth expound the threatning in Gen. 3. 19. 2 This is also worthy of all due consideration That this bodily death was not threatned to be formally executed in the day of Adams sinful eating as death in sin was 3 Neither was a bodily death threatned to be formally executed on any certain day afterwards 4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death after this time but upon the committing of such and such sins he did still from time to time threaten a bodily death But after the first threatning of a spiritual death in sin God did never threaten that death any more he did but once threaten that death and but once execute it 5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to beleeving Adam he adjudged him and all his beleeving posterity no further then their bodies to the earth whence Christ should one day raise them and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption but he adjudged his unbeleeving seed not only to a bodily but also to an eternal death in hell 6 From this appoinment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. and not from that death in Gen. 2. 17. must all the Scriptures have reference that speak of a bodily death 7 Hence it is evident that bodily death was not at first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin but as an immediate effect and punishment of original sin and this Rom. 5. 12. 14. is further evident by Rom. 5. 12. As by one man namely by one mans disobedience as it is explained in verse 19. sin entred into the world namely original sin and death by sin namely a bodily death by original sin And the matter is yet more plain by vers 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams trangression that is to say Death reigned over Infants from Adam to Moses for their original sin before ever they had sinned actually after the similitude of Adams Transgression and saith Paul in vers 21. Sin namely original sin reigned unto death Hence it follows that the wages of Adams first sin was death in sin and the wages of his original sin was a
bodily death only to beleevers and eternal death to all unbeleevers Rom. 6. 23. And it is evident that this is an ancient orthodox Tenet that bodily death did first enter into the world by original sin Fulgentius de incar gratia Christi ch 12. saith Except the death of the soul had gone before by sin the death of the body had never followed after as a punishment and saith he in Chap. 13. Our flesh is born with the punishment of death and the pollution of sin and of young children he saith By what justice is an infant subjected to the wages of sin if there be no uncleannesse of sin in him And saith Prosper de promiss prâ—dict part 1. c. 5. The punishment of sin which Adam the root of mankind received by Gods sentence saying Earth thou art and to earth thou shalt return Gen. 3. 19. and transmitted to his posterity as to his branches the Apostle saith entred into the world by one mans sin and so ranged over all men And Origen as I find him cited by Dr. Willet saith You may call the corporal death a shadow of the other namely a shadow See Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Quest 21. of our spiritual death in sin that wheresoever that invadeth the other doth also necessarily follow And Theophâ—lus Reason doth conclude as much By the sin of Adam saith he sin and death invaded the world namely by Adams first sin original sin invaded the world and then bodily death invaded the world by means of original sin And saith Peter Martyr It is much to be marvelled at how P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. the Pelagians can deny original sin in Infants seeing they see they daily dye And saith Maxentius in libello fidei c. 3. We beleeve that not onely the death of the body which is the punishment of sin but also that the sting of death which is sin entred into the world and the Apostle testifieth that sin and death went over all men And saith Bullenger in Decad. 3. Ser. 3. By disobedience sin entred into the world and by sin death diseases and all the mischiefes in the world Many other Orthodox Writers do confirm this for a cleer truth That God inflicted bodily death on mans nature in general as a punishment of original sin now if it were inflicted on man as a punishment of original sin then it was not threatned as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in Gen. â— 17. And the Hebrew Doctors as well as Christian Writers understand the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. of death in sin and they make bodily death to be the immediate effect of it 1 By the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Rabby Moses Ben Mamony understandeth a spiritual death that is to say the See Dupless is in the Truenesse of Religion â—h 27. death of the soul wounded with sin and so forsaken of her life which is God And other Hebrew Doctors say that bodily death is the effect of original sin Unto this world say the Hebrew Rabbins cited by Ains in Gen. 3. 19. there cleaveth the secret filthinesse of the Serpent which came upon Eve and because of that filthinesse death is come upon Adam and his seed And saith Ainsworth in Gen. 3. 15. The mystery of original sin and thereby death over all and of deliverance by Christ Rab. Menachem on Lev. 25. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words So long as the spirit of uncleannesse is not taken away out of the world the souls that come down into this world must needs dye for to root out the power of uncleannesse out of the world and to consume the same and all this is because of the Decree which was decreed for the uncleannesse and filthinesse which the Serpent brought upon Eve From these Testimonies it is evident that the ancient Hebrew Doctors held bodily death to be the immediate effect of original sin and they held original sin to be a spiritual death and to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin Chrysostome also saith We dye a double death therefore we Chrys against Drunkards and of the Resurrection must look for a double resurrection Christ dyed but one kind of death therefore he rose but one kind of resurrection Adam saith he dyed body and soul First he dyed to sin And secondly to nature In what day soever ye eat of the Tree said God ye shall dye the death that very day did not Adam dye in which he did eat but he then dyed to sin and long after to nature The first is the death of the soul the other the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishment To us men there is a double death and therefore we must have a double resurrection To Christ there was but one kind of death for he sinned not and that one kind of death was for us he owed no kind of death for he was not subject to sin and so not to death In these words we see that Chrysostome held that Adam first dyed to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly to nature long after his death in sin This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true substance in the Dialogue in page 10. c. and from that Exposition I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead for our redemption and if this Exposition which I have now inlarged be sound and according to the Context as I beleeve it is then the inference that I made is right and good But I confesse that upon the receit of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition I was much staggered for as I remember he demanded this question By whose means was it that Adam dyed this spiritual death was it inflicted on him by God or rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a
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
a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statute of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. â— 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Jehovah hath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Testament was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Lev. 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operato to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience ftom their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word â—etter Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfaction for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction
his obedient death on the Crosse The Apostle doth tell us that we have Remission of sins by vertue of Christs satisfaction namely by his bloody death and sacrifice Heb. 9. 15 26 28. Heb. 10. 10 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell in all the Scripture though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation and therefore it will fall of it self His eight Argument examined which is this If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith hath established the Law Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law Reply 1. If by this conclusion Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law he means no more but this namely that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it then hee proves no more than the Dialogue and all good Christians do grant But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse which doubtlesse is the great thing that he aims at then any ordinary Reader may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand except it be to fill up the number of Eight But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition for though the Text doth expressely say That justifying faith doth establish the Law yet it doth not thence follow That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith this also is another Paradox for many Orthodox Divines do shew how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects Reply 2. I say that Mr. Nortons exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing neer the Apostles meaning What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth yet Dr. Willet whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve doth reject their exposition and that upon this ground because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law by the members of Christ and not by Christ the Head alone And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth Wee sairh he make it firm and effectual But Calvin renders the text thus It is established and confirmed And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text refuting the Antinomians Mr. Burges saith It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In Vindiciae legis lect 21. p. 209. or strengthning a pillar that is ready to fall Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator namely that to establish is to confirm in opposition to abrogate or disanull And truly seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former it follows that to establish the Law must not be expounded to fulfill the Law as Mr. Norton doth carry it for saith hee Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law But because four of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresie against the Dialogue Therefore I will labour to shew the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it 1 I intreat the Judicious Reader to take notice That the Question betwixt us is not whether faith doth establish the Law or no for the Text it self doth affirm it But the point in difference is In what sense doth faith establish the Law Mr. Norton saith That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments But in that sense I deny it Neither will I tire out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned but pitch upon such as I beleeve are foundest 1 Take notice that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously shew how the Law is established several wayes and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law he comes nothing neer to Mr. Nortons sense 2 Aretius shews how the Law is established three wayes by faith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse 3 Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius shews that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. â— c 5 n. 7. p. 120. c. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice which is in very deed the proper end of the Law and for this sense hee produceth the Testimony of Augustine Anselm and Primasius 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox who In Vindiciae legis lect 21. ult in p. 120 121. shew how the Law is established by faith But he rejects Mr. Nortons way of establishing as Dr. Willet did and concludes with the judgement of Austine that the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfill the Law and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law 5 Mr. Blake saith thus Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Faederis p. 50. would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ namely that he came to destroy the Law Mat. 5. 17 18. saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it and in other words he proceeds to shew that faith doth establish the Law as it is the Rule of sanctified walking 6 Saith Mr. Ball The Apostle doth not perpetually and absolutely Ball on the Coven p. 115. oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace for he teacheth expresly that Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3. 31. for saith he the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith But because the Jews addicted to the letter of the Law did pretermit the force and life of it Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith to be the cause not of life but of death c. 7 Tindal saith Faith onely justifieth maketh righteous and In Tindals works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law for it bringeth the Spirit through Christs deservings The Spirit bringeth lust looseth the heart maketh him free and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love even as the Law requireth then at last out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law his speech sounded as though he would
see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 1â— It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 Heb. 9. 27 28 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these three Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numeriee and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would sain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not
53. 6. was after the same manner as the Lord laid the sins of Israel upon the Priest and Sacrifice and no otherwise as in Exod. 28. 38. and in Lev. 10. 17. Mr. Norton doth answer in page 43. Whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is That the Types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin to Christ the Antitype Reply 1. The meaning of the Dialogue is plain namely that Christ bare our sins as the typical Priest and Sacrifice did bear the sins of Israel And the Priests are said to bear all their sins because they offered publick sacrifices to procure a legal Attonement for the sins of all Israel and so Christ bare our sins because hee made his soul a Sacrifice by his Priestly power by which he procured his Fathers Attonement for all our sins formally 2 In the Dialogue in page 25. I have shewed how Christ may be said to bear our sins several other wayes and yet not as a guilty sinner by a formal legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. Put case you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Reply 2. The Dialogues instances do make it appear plain enough to the willing to bee informed That the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended but to a byassed spirit it is not easie to be done Let the Reader peruse the Dialogue and then judge But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice Isa 53. 12. Therefore say we by Imputation Reply 3. He doth acknowledge it to bee a truth that God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice therefore say wee not by Mr. Nortons kind of imputation for his kind of imputation is not to be found in the typical sacrifices but the true manner of Christs bearing our sins as our Priestly Mediator may be found because it was typified by the Priests eating of the peoples Sin-offering as Mediators in the holy place as the Dialogue hath truly expounded Lev. 10. 17. for their eating signified such a communion as Mediators must have between both parties in the work of Attonement And secondly The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah Hee poured out his soul to death and bare the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors Isa 53. 12. All these three terms saith the Dialogue are Synonima's But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sin and intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concur as ingredients to the same Mediatorship Reply 4. I cannot find any thing in this answer to confute the Synonimas expressed by the Dialogue I think this answer is meerly intended to amuse the Reader The Dialogue shews plainly that all these three terms are metaphorical Synonimas being all joyned together in this Text to declare unto us the true manner how the Lord made Christ to bear all our sins as our Sacrifice 1 His death is put for his sacrifice 2 His sacrifice bears all our sins from us because it procures Gods Attonement 3 By the eternal efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice he makes continual intercession for us and so hee doth still bear our sins by his continual interceding Gods Attonement And thus all these terms are Synonimas and to this I shall speak more fully in Reply 18. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The force of this Reason is that Christs sacrifice was effectual to procure Attonement therefore sin was not imputed to him A meer non sequitur Nay the contrary consequence is true Christ saith hee appeared that is Was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9. 26. was once offered to bear the sins of the many verse 28. The Greek word here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2. 24. signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away and this is an allusion to the Rite of the whole Burnt-offering Reply 5. In this Answer Mr. Norton labors to prove that Christ bare our sins by Gods imputation by Heb. 9. 26. 28. Heb. 9. 26. 28 Christ appeared that is saith he was manifested in the flesh hee little minded the Context in saying that his appearing here did signifie his manifesting in the flesh for it is easie to bee discerned that his appearing here doth signifie his appearing before Dan. 9. 24. God with his sacrifice for sin and that was three and thirty yeers after his first appearing in the flesh as I noted Christ put away sin namely all Sin offerings by his being made the only true Sacrifice for sin from his approaching unto God in the beginning of this Chapter by which hee put away sin namely all Sin-offerings according to that in Dan. 9. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish Trespasse offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity as the meritorious cause and so to bring in an everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial as our money brings in our cloathing and then it follows in Pauls next words That Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many this Greek word to bear here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter saith Mr. Norton signifies to take carty or bear up on high and that so as to bear away now apply his Rule in page 44. to what he saith here and there hee answers himself to what hee reasons here Put case saith he you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing So say I of this Text of Heb. 9. 28. except Mr. Norton can make it appear That the manner of Christs bearing our sins was fully intended by this Text to be by Gods legal imputation he concludes nothing he saith that the Greek word here for bearing and in 1 Pet. 2 24. is the same I grant it but yet it hath a several sense in those two places as I have shewed in the Dialogue 1 I have shewed that Christ in his conflict with Sathan bare our sins as a Porter bears a burthen as it is in 1 Pet. 2. 24. according to Gen. 3. 15. But secondly In Heb. 9. 24. Hee bears our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice when hee died formally by his own Priestly power by this sacrifice hee procured Gods Attonement by which our sins are formally born away from us And saith the Apostle Vnto them that look for him shall hee appear the second time without sin unto salvation namely Hee shall appear the second time without being made
say To bee a Sin sacrifice for us as it is rightly and fully opened in the Dialogue this phrase He was to be made sin for us saith the Dialogue must not bee taken in a proper literal sense but in a metaphorical sense being borrowed from the Levitical Law where the sacrifices for sin are often called Sin in the Hebrew Text though our English Translations have added the word Sacrifice by way of exposition as for example in Exod. 29. 14 36. the Hebrew saith thus It is a sin but wee translate it thus It is a Sin-offering we adde the word Offering to the word Sin as the Hebrew text also sometimes doth though very rarely as in Lev. 6. 26. and Lev. 9. 15. the Priest that offereth it for sin this is very neer the word Sin-offering but almost every where the Hebrew doth call it a sin without any addition as in Ex. 29. 14 36. Ex. 30. 10. Lev. 4. 3. 8 14 20 21 24 25 26 29 32 33. Lev. 5. 6 7 8 9 11 12 Lev. 6. 17 25 30. Lev. 7. 7 27. Le. 8. 2 14. Lev. 9. 2 3 7 8 10 15 22 Lev. 10. 16 17 19. Lev. 12. 6 8. Lev. 14. 13 19 22 31. Lev. 15. 15 30. Lev. 16 3 5 6 9 11 15 25 27. Lev. 23. 19. Num. 6. 11 14 16. Num. 7. 16 22 28 34 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 87. Num. 8. 8 12. Num. 18. 9. Num. 28. 15 22. Num. 29. 11 16 19 22 25 34 38. 2 Chron. 29. 21 23 24. Ezra 8. 35 Ezra 10. 33. Ezek 40. 39. Ezek. 42. 13. Ezek. 43. 21 22 25. Ezek. 44. 29. Ezek. 46. 20. Hos 4. 8. Hos 8. 11. In all these places the Sin-offering is called Sin in the Hebrew text and this Hebraism the Septuagint do follow and the Chaldy Paraphrase and the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Rom. 8. 3. and Heb. 10. 26. and the use was to expiate moral sins done in ignorance but chiefly it was to expiate their ceremonial sins as the places cited do witnesse These Scriptures do stare in the face of such as make Christ to bee sin for us by a judicial imputation as Judges do when they impute sin to Malefactors as the meritorious cause of inflicting legal punishments upon them 6 It is added which knew no sin namely no sin formally neither by inherent corruption nor by Gods legal imputation and yet notwithstanding though he was every way free God did let Sathan loose upon him as upon a Malefactor to combate with his humane nature to insnare him in some sin or other and to impute sin to him and so to peirce him in the Foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Tree and in this sense it is said by Peter that God made him to bear our sins in his body on the Tree these punishments of sin Christ suffered not necessarily as we guilty sinners do from Gods formal imputation of sin but voluntarily as a Combater with Sathan without any formal guilt or desert on his part And secondly He bare our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice by procuring Reconciliation and therefore he is said in Isa 53. 10. to make himself Asham a Trespasse or Sin as the Septuagint translate it And thus you see that Christ made himself to bee sin as much as God made him to be sin namely to be a sacrifice for sin and no otherwise as I have shewed in the Dialogue in page 42. 7 The reason or the end why God made him to be sin is It is the righteousnesse of each person iâ— Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly reconciling and justifying of the Elect. Rom. 5. 18. added in the next clause That we might be made the righteousnesse of God and this doth call to our consideration the Covenant between the Trinity for mans Redemption for the Text saith That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself vers 19. 1 Consider that Christ covenanted with his Father to combate with Sathan and at last to be made a sacrifice for sin as the meritorious cause for our reconciliation and justification And hence it follows that as soon as hee had performed the said Sin-sacrifice it is truly called His righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. and this is the true and full interpretation of the word Righteousnesse in that Text. 2 On the other hand the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father was that upon the performance of Christs sacrifice he would bee reconciled to beleeving sinners and the performance of this reconciliation on God the Fathers part is called the Righteousnesse of God in this Text and in this sense the Argument of the Apostle doth run from verse 19. to the end of this 21. vers 8 In Him that is to say in Christ for as soon as sinners are in Christ by the work of the Holy Ghost they are made partakers of Gods righteousnesse for according to his Covenant with Christ it is his righteousnesse to bee fully reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by faith by which means their sins are pardoned and so they are justified from sin or made formally righteous by this righteousnesse of God the Father And thus have I opened the true sense of this verse by which it doth appear that Mr. Nortons first comparative Argument is not framed neither to the words nor to the true sense of this verse SECT III. IN Chapter 6. I have made an examination of Mr. Nortons several expressions about Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ and I little question but what I have said in that No Scripture rightly interpreted makes our sins to be formally imputed to Christ by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds Chapter and in Chap. 13. and what I say in this 14. Chapter will satisfie the judicious and unpartial Reader 2 Consider the frame of Mr. Nortons Argument and me thinks the very naming of it should sufficiently shew the dangerousnesse of it Christ saith He was made sin for us as wee were made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ that is saith he hee was made sin by Gods judicial imputation namely a true sinner formally And so in like sort hee holds that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us to make a real change in our condition by making us formally righteous and thus by his comparative Argument our sins were really imputed to Christ to make a real change in his condition namely to make him a sinner formally by Gods judicial imputation that so God might in justice inflict upon him the essential punishment of Hell-torments Doth not the very repetition of this Argument plainly enough shew the dangerousnesse of it 3 Mr. Anthony Wotton shews that it is a palpable mistake to assert the imputation of our sins to Christ in the sense of Mr. Norton in Reconcil Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 4. and to the end of the Chapter of which I shall speak more by
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
dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should hee not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed hee should dye but the other for whom hee dyed should not live yet though it bee not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not bee both just and merciful If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter and compare them with these words of Bernard he may see as direct an opposition as is possible Hence I conclude That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard which is neer a thousand yeers space were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons kind of imputing our sins to Christ to make him guilty of his death and sufferings and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late dayes SECT V. The second thing to bee examined in 2 Cor. 5 21. is touching the word Righteousnesse which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument doth make to be the Righteousnesse of Christ BUt I have already shewed that this word Righteousnesse is not meant of Christs Righteousnesse but of God the Fathers Righteousnesse for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Sathans Head-plot Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Priest First to combate with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sâ—nners righteousnesse And secondly to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation and the performance of this is called his Righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly God the Father covenanted to bee reconciled and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ and his performance of this is here called The Righteousnesse of God the Father And thirdly The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ that so they might bee the fit subjects of the said Righteousnesse 2 I grant that the righteousnesse of God may bee distinguished into many other senses as Mr. Wotton hath shewed de Reconcil pec part 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must bee considered according to the context in each place where it is used but in this place Gods reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as it is expressed in verse 19. iâ— called the righteousnesse of God in this 21. verse because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator for the compleating of a sinners righteousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. Ball on the Covenant p. 219. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins aâ— least saith he it is one part or branch of Reconciliation which is a transient act conferred in time and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified or reconciled and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man the Scripture speaketh not In these words the Reader may please to take notice that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification in the party justified or reconciled and so hee makes justification to bee the first part or branch of reconciliation as Mr. Wotton doth And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9 10. Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification by Christs blood for the same thing merited by Christs sacrifice These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us that Gods righteousnesse procured by the Sin-sacrifice of Christ in v. 21. is the same or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19. by his not imputing sin and the performance of that reconciliation or non-imputation of sin on Gods part for the sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice is called the righteousnesse of God the Father in this 21. verse and this exposition of the righteousnesse of God any indifferent Reader may see to be cleerly meant by the context though I should say no more But I will yet further evidence that this exposition of Gods righteousnesse is no new upstart exposition but that it hath the concurrence and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus Now resteth to see what is the righteousnesse of God and it may thus be defined It is an Absolution from sins by faith through Christ And saith he that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin Sin is a defect or falling away from the Law and Will of God And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation Wherefore when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltinesse is taken away A man is absolved from his sins Ibidem Now by these things saith he it is manifest what Absolution is It is an action of God the Father whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins that is from guiltinesse and obligation to eternal death But saith he in the second place that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert therefore it is added through Christ And saith he in the third place that wee should not bee ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applyed to every one of us it is added by faith This definition saith he is a great help to the right understanding of justification and this righteousnesse Paul saith Is the righteousnesse of God Ibidem And saith he the Commentaries which are ascribed unto Jerâ—m do herein very well agree They are not subject to the righteousnesse of God that is saith he the absolution of sins And leâ—t wee should in our thoughts mistake the true nature of this righteousnesse of God whereby he makes sinners that are in Christ righteous he gives this special caution to bee marked Ibidem By these things saith he let us gather that this righteousnesse of God is far distant from the righteousnesse that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other Righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their Sacrifices â—estifie But this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness neither ever understood they the true pacifying of God nor wherein it consisted Thus far P. Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. he had spoken of the Righteousness of God afore this in Rom. 1. 17. and
in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more â—eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Iâ—sti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Râ—m 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods meer positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in
making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteteousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Attonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 12. and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be
merciful is as much as I will bee Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. Gods Attonement or Expiation and therefore this expression I will be merciful may as well bee translated I will bee pacified or I will be reconciled or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness and will remember their sins no more And saith Nehemiah 9. 17. Thou art a God of pardons gracious and merciful And hence it is plain that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or a means of Gods Attonement but it is plainly a true part thereof if it bee not the whole 4 This is yet further evident because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19. 14. 19. where it is used to express Gods forgiveness by his bearing of sin away but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful or pacified or reconciled but yet in vers 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Gods repentance towards sinners by forgiving and not punishing their sin as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God Repent of the evil to thy people but the Septuagint translate it be merciful or bee pacified or bee reconciled or bee propitious to the evill of thy people alluding in this expression to Gods Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where in type God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar more at large in Reply 9. 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof Psal 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. and therefore Gods forgiveness may well be called his merciful forgiveness or his reconciled forgiveness as Mr. Ainsworth doth open Gods forgiveness in Psal 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent but a concurrent part of Gods Reconciliation or of Gods Righteousnesse for Psal 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. though the terms be divers for I demand how else are wee made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ which was to bee reconciled to beleeving sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them And thus you see that these three terms Gods merciful forgiveness and his Reconciliation and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness do all con-note the same state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof and so forgiveness is not antecedent but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin to reconcile God withal and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinners justification by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering as the procuring cause of Gods reconciliation for it is often said in the Law that God ordained the Sin-offering to Lev. 6. 30. reconcile withal as in Lev. 6. 30. 2 Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices as well as the Sin-offering to procure Gods reconciliation by not imputing sin and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Attonement as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness as in Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. as I have shewed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Attonement called sacrifices of Righteousness but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them and that was their legal righteousness For the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh And hence the Apostle doth argue How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing sin and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness and therefore answerable to the types God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to bee our Burnt-offering our Peace-offering our Trespass-offering our Meat-offering and our Sin-offering as the perfection of all the rest For by his one offering once offered hee ended the use of all Trespass offerings and finished Sin offerings and made reconciliation for iniquity and so brought in or procured an everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9. 24. instead of their Dan. 9. 24. Ceremonial reconciliation which was their Ceremonial righteousness for Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee that is to say merciful forgiveness Dan. 9. 7 16. or reconciliation and in vers 16. O Lord according to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away But the Septuagint render it O Lord according to thy mercy let thine anger be turned away namely according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and beleeving sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness and Attonement Let thine anger bee turned away and justifie us to bee thy people by not imputing our sins to us and in this sense the penitent Publican said O Lord be merciful to me a sinner and so hee went away justified by Gods merciful attonement and forgiveness which was the very thing he prayed for 9 Sin till it is forgiven doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ it continues the enmity but then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then God is at rest and is pacified and quieted And for this cause all Sacrifices of Attonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah Exod. 22. 18 25 41. Levit. 1. 9. Numb 28. 6 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40 41. But the Septuagint translate it A sweet savour of rest and their phrase the Apostle followeth saying Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a smell of sweet savour Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broyled in the fire materially considered was no sweet smell but formally considered as they were ordained by Gods positive Covenant to procure his Attonement and as they were types of Christs Sacrifice so only are they said to bee of a sweet-smelling savour because they procure his pardon and so they quiet Gods Spirit as sweet smels do quiet and rejoyce our senses therefore Gods forgiveness is not an
in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomata for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dan. 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out the filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hâ—brew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10. 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first codemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver
that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousneâ—s I say this voluntary and reciprocial Covenant between the Trinity doth constitute all the causes of a sinners righteousness and in particular the Covenant on the Fathers part doth constitute the formal part of it This positive created Righteousness was unknown to natural Philosophers it is not framed from the moral Law of Nature but it is a Righteousness for sinners created on purpose by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant of the Trinity 4. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should so much plead for the moral righteousness of Christ to be the matter and the imputation of it to be the form of our righteousness seeing it did not formally constitute Adams righteousness as Mr. Norton himself doth also acknowledge in p. 261. and Mr. Burges on Justification p. 8. and indeed the reason thereof is very plain because God required that Adam should first eate of the tree of life as the meritorious cause for procuring the formality of his moral perfections and this tree had this efficacy from Gods voluntary positive Covenant with Adam As I have shewed more large already chap. 2. The Dialogue saith that sinners in themselves namely as long as they continue to be sinners which is as long as they live in this body of sin can have no other righteousness than a passive righteousness proceeding from Gods merciful attonement pardon and forgiveness But Mr. Norton in p. 231. leaves out these words in themselves and then makes a false Argument of the Dialogues sense But I dare say no judicious Christian that will but make through search into all the types of legal Justification shall find any other way of making sinners righteous but by Attonement or Reconciliation in not imputing sin Reckon up the legal terms by which Attonement is expressed and that will justifie what I say as by expiating sin not imputing sin mercifully forgiving sin purging sin purifying washing cleansing sin to the sanctifying the flesh these and such like are abundantly used in the Law but never any for making righteous by imputing moral righteousness which doubtless would have been ordained to typifie the imputation of Christs moral righteousness in the formal cause of Justification if any such thing had been intended for the only formal cause 5. It seems to me that Mr. Norton doth wilfully stumble at the stile of the Dialogue because it makes a sinners righteousness to be procured by Christs sacrifice of Attonement but any one may see that this phrase the Sacrifice of Attonement at which he stumbles is a usual Scripture phrase for the publick yearly Sin-Offering is called the Sin of Attonements Ezod 30. 10. and the Ram of Attonement Numb 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by Gods voluntary Covenant to procure Gods Attonement and Justification from all their legal sins even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by Gods attonement and in relation to their typical use the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Attonement Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious formal causes for the procuring of Gods attonement for all our moral sins and so consequently for our moral justification and this is most cleer because the Apostle doth define Gods reconciliation to sinners by his not imputing their sins to them 2 Cor. 5. 19. for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner but when God doth not impute sin then there is no more jar but reconciliation with God And therefore the sin of Attonement which was offered on Reconciliation-day is called by the Septuagint the Purgation of sins because it procured Gods Attonement by which only sin is purged away Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ Heb. 1. 3. namely as it is the meritorious cause of Gods reconciliation whereby our sins are fully purged The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signifie to cover pacifie or appease noting thereby the meritorious cause Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to bee pacified doth note the formal cause It doth also signifie to satisfie or recompence noting thereby the meritorious cause 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to bee satisfied doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased satisfied or reconciled and so in Psal 85. 1 2. Lord thou hast been favourable or well-pleased with thy land Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people and covered all their sin These three several phrases are Synonimas and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation needs not now to be disputed because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward And hence it follows that Christs sacrifice may well bee caled a Sacrifice of Attonement because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Attonement and because it was ordained to procure Gods Attonement and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Attonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. not only because they were offered in faith as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness because they did legally compleat a sinners righteousness in respect of his ceremonial sins and so also they did exemplifie how a sinners righteousness should be compleated by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins sacrifices must be performed in righteousness that is to say without spot or wrinkle for then they were offered in righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplifie our moral righteousness Conclusion Gods Attonement or Reconciliation hath these two parts 1 His not imputing sin 2 His receiving into favour or both these may bee joyned into one namely Gods gracious pardon and all this is the effect of Christs sacrifice for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a beleeving sinner that is in Christ from the guilt of all his sins and so receives him into favour by adoption or thus Gods Attonement for the sake of Christs Sacrifice is not a bare legal forgiveness as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is a gracious acquital as when a Father forgives his Son and receives him into favour And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logick and his own conscience for hee knows that in his antecedent
this mony or at least with part of See Ainsw in Exod. 30. 12. and Lev. 28. 4. it they bought the daily sacrifices that were offered morning and evening for the procuring Gods attonement to the whole Church of Israel and with this money they also purchased the publick Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings and therefore it was called sin-mony and trespass-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. but in Exo. 30. 16. is called attonement mony and by some Translations redemption-mony because redemption is obtained by procuring Gods attonement and hence we may see the reason why we are said to be bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 20. and why the blood of Christ is called a price 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. the phrase of a price given to the Sacrifice and so to Christs sacrifice is borrowed from the price that God appointed them to pay for the redemption of their lives and for the buying of sacrifices of attonement for the procuring of Gods attonement for the redemption of their lives and so for their justification in his sight Sixthly Caphar is used for the covering of Gods angry face from moral sins that defile the Land by executing impartial Justice upon Malefactors And thus Phineas when he executed justice on the Fornicators did by that means cover Gods angry face or make attonement for the Sons of Israel Numb 25. 17. In like sort when Gods angry face had been upon the Land by a three years famine for Sauls bloody sin in slaying the innocent Gibbeonites Then David said to the Gibbeonites wherewith shall I cover Gods angry face or make attonement that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 3. Then they Deut 21. 8. said in ver 6. Let seven of his Sons be given and we will hang them up to the Lord and so Gods angry face was covered and attoned It is also said in Numb 35. 33. Blood polluteth the Land and there shall be no covering of my anger or attonement made for the Land but by the blood of him that shed it and in case of a secret murderer yet by Gods Ordinance the Land was guilty till the Elders of the people had made attonement by the death of a Bullock Exod. 21. 8. Seventhly Caphar is used for the covering of Gods angry face from ceremonial sins by typical Sacrifices of Attonement and from the moral sins of our souls by the true sacrifice of Christ And this kind of covering by Attonement doth alwaies denote Gods forgiveness and receiving into favor as Lev. 4. 20 26 31 35. Lev. 5. 6 10 13 16 18. And sometimes it is expressed by making clean as in Numb 8. 21. Lev. 16. 30. Mr. Ainsworth in Gen. 32. 20. saith This word Caphar is often used in the Law for covering or taking away offences and for pacifying anger by gifts and so making Attonement as in Exod. 29. 36. Levit. 1. 4 20 26. and 5. 6 10 13. Deut. 21. 8. And saith he in Psal 65. 4. Our trespasses thou wilt mercifully cover them namely expiate propitiate purge away and so mercifully cover and forgive them And saith he the Hebrew Caphar signifies to cover and saith he the cover of the Ark was called Caporeth Exod. 25. 17. in Greek Hilasteriâ—n That is the propitiatory or Mercy-Seat Hebr. 9. 5. which name Paul giveth to Christ Rom. 3. 25. and he is the true propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 2. And saith he in Psal 78. 38. He being compassionate mercifully covered iniquity And saith he in Psal 79. 9. mercifully cover our sins he doth most fitly add the word merciful to the word cover because Caporeth is applied to the cover of the Ark called Gods Mercy-Seat where he used to appear and to manifest his favor by the cloud of his presence when he was attoned to his people Lev. 16. 2. and so the word Merciful or propitious is added to Gods forgiving the sins of his people in Heb. 8. 12. and such as confess their sins have the promise of Gods mercy namely of his merciful pardon in Prov. 28. 13. By these and such like considerations we may see the reason why David useth this phrase Blessed is the man whose sin iâ— covered Psal 32. 1. namely by Gods gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christs propitiatory sacrifice The use of the burnt offering saith Ainsworth was to procure Gods attonement or remission of sins as it is evident saith he by Job 42. 8. and so saith he the anger of God is covered or appeased by the burnt offering of Christs for he is the attonement or reconciliation for our sins Dan. 9. 24. 1 Joh. 2. 2. Heb. 10. 8 10. Eighthly After I had penned these meditations on the word Attonement I met with another excellent explanation of it in our larger Annotations in 2 Chr. 6. 49. The Reader may please to confer that note with these meditations Ninethly It is also worth the marking that the Seventy do render the Hebrew word Caphar in various expressions Some of them I will name 1. The Seventy do render the word Caphar to sanctifie in Exod. 29. 33. There our Translation saith thus Aaron and his sons shall eat those things by which attonement was made But the Seventy say by which they were sanctified And so in ver 36. our translation saith thus Thou shalt offer every day a Bullock for a sin of Attonement The Seventy say for a sin by which they shall be sanctified But I have opened this word sanctified before in Reply 3. And so it is said in Heb. 9. 13. That the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh for their legal Justification before God in his Sanctuary But when Christ came into the world he took away these legal sanctifications and these bodily justifications by the blood of Bulls c. and according to Gods will he established his own Sacrifice in the place of them by which will saith the Apostle we are sanctified namely by Gods attonement and forgiveness Heb. 10. 10 14. that is to say we are justified from our moral sins through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all This exposition of the word Caphar which is used to set out Gods covering of sin by his attonement is by the Seventy translated sanctified and therefore it doth force us to take notice but that we are dull of hearing that a sinners righteousness in Gods sight doth stand in being sanctified or made sinless by Gods attonement and forgiveness This kind of sanctification is our onely justification in Gods sight For according to the understanding of the Seventy Interpreters Caphar the covering of sin by Gods attonement did denominate the Jews to be legally sanctified to the purifying of their flesh because by Gods attonement their impurity was removed without putting any active purity upon their flesh by any positive Ordinance This kind of sanctification therefore was a lively
ignominious death than by his earnest sweating prayers in which he was heard because of his godly fear But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. The word Agony in Luke 22. 44. signifies the sorrows of Combaters A true description of Christs Agony Luk. 22. 44. entring the Lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life A metaphor taken from the Passion of conflicting affections in the greatest eminentest and most sensible perils and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men Reply 21. This description of the word Agony I do acknowledge to bee very true and good But in his explication of it to Christ he doth again spoyl it because hee makes the Agony of Christ to be his conflicting with his Fathers vindicative wrath and with eternal death whereas according to the true sense of Scripture It was his natural fear conflicting with his ignominious torturing death which by his own Covenant with his Father he was to suffer from his combater Satan and in that respect he also covenanted that his true humane nature which he would assume from the seed of the deceived sinful woman should be eminently touched with the dread of his cruel and ignominious usage according to the true purport of Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 87. Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony in Luk. 22. 44. Reply 22. I grant it was an Agony in general but not from his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds but from his sufferings from the malice of his Combater Satan and for the better understanding of the true nature of his agony I will ranck it into two sorts First Into his active agony in the Garden Secondly Into his passive agony or rather into his active-passive agony from the time of his apprehension to his death on the cross 1 I will speak of his active agony and that was begun in some degree before his last Supper as it is evident by Joh. 12. 27. Joh. 12. 27. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour namely from the dread of this hour but not absolutely from the hour of his sufferings as the next words do evidence but saith he for this cause came I to this hour And though it is said by a * Sometimes the passive verb is put for the active See Ainsw in Deut. 31. 17. and in Pareus reconciling the Greek in Rom. 4 3. with the Hebrew in Gen. 15. 6. he saith these two are all one God imputed Faith and Faith by God was imputed so also he poured out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. is in the Seventy and in Rom. 4. 25. he was delivered to death And saith â—all on the Covenant p. 60. Active verbs are expounded passively among the Hebrews See also Ains in Psa 36 3. 109. 13. 40 15. 122. 5. Gen. 20. 6. Lev. 26. 1 11. passive verb my soul is troubled yet in Joh. 11. 33. he is said to trouble himself And hence it follows by these two Scriptures compared that his conflicting affections were active for his sensitive will was in an absolute subjection to his rational will in which he was the absolute Lord Commander of all his affections they did his will at his beck and this excellent property belongs onely to the humane nature of Christ it is his personal priviledge for our natural passions in him were above our natural power because nature in him did never go before his will as Damasen speaks in Reply 26. 2 The thought of his sufferings was much in his mind when he was at his last Supper and therefore while he was at Supper he bad Judas to do what he had to do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and when Judas was gone about his treachery he did manifest that he had very sad apprehensions of what evils he was to suffer for Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands Joh. 13. 3. namely knowing that the Father had given the management of the whole combate into the hands of his true humane nature as it was accompanied with true humane passions He knew it was his duty to stir up his true humane conflicting affections in a more eminent manner than other men at the approach of his ignominious and painful sufferings according to the most eminent and tender constitution of his nature above the nature of other men 3 It is also evident that the expressions of the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark do relate to the same agony that Luke doth and therefore Tindal doth translate Ademonein Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark 14. 33. which we translate very heavy by the word Agony in both places just as he doth Agon in Luk. 22. 44. But as soon as Christ had obtained a confirmation against his said natural fear by his earnest prayers in the Garden then his inward agony by his conflicting affections had an end I say after he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation he never had any more conflicting affections in the consideration of those evils he was to suffer as he had before he had prayed as I have formerly noted it But as soon as he had obtained his request by his earnest prayers then he came to his Disciples and said to them as a resolved Champion Come the hour is come Behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners Rise up let us go Mark 14. 41 42. namely let us not Mar. 14. 41 42. rise up to run away through fear but let us go and meet those arch-Instruments of Satan the sons of Belial aâ— Ainsw calls them in Gen. 13. 13. or as Trap saith in Matth. 26. 46. Rise let us be going to meet that death which till he had prayed saith he he greatly feared Or let us go meet my Combater Satan He speaks these words after the manner of a couragious Champion that is going to strive with his Antagonist for the mastery and the sequel shows that from this time forwards he resisted his Combater Satan unto blood for it was counted a shame for such as undertook to be Combaters to yeeld before any blood was drawn and indeed such combate as were undertaken for the tryal of the mastery were seldom determined without blood And accordingly he that did overcome his Antagonist without transgressing the voluntary Laws of the Combat was reputed by the Masters of the game to be a lawful victor and he did thereby merit the prize and unto this custom the Apostle doth allude in Heb. 12. 1 2 3. Ye Heb. 12. 1 2 3. have not yet resisted unto blood striving against sin Look therefore unto the example of that Combater Jesus Christ who is the Captain and conservator as Ains renders the word in Lev. 8. 22. of our Faith Who for the joy that was set before him indured the cross and
which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgeâ—â—â—â— To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they misâ— it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and Heb. 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and at last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time tugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. And thus instead of entring
13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge wâ—th the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sins Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansâ—ng and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctâ—fie them or make them holy from the defilement of all theiâ— legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if â—he bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers that could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2. 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods