maintain it p 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordained a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head-plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ in the very time when he did execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith aâ— Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christs suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they bave any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon p. 77 and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply â—4 To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential torments of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore he did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guilt of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fâ—uit then his nature as it was â—he feuntain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then he must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the highest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by natural generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because he voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can he be said to be our lâ—gal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration before he could make his death to be a Sacrifice of Reconciliation p. 92 309 CHAP. VII IT must needs be but a meer fantasie to hold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in full Torments as long as they remain in this world p 105 If the humane nature of Christ had partaken of the essential joyes of heaven before his death as Mr. Norton holds then doubtless he had been confirmed against the sufferings of death p. 107 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 107. Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 29 30 34. that Gods declarative glory is not essential to God Mr. Norton doth often fall from his foundation principle which is That Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell to that which is equivalent p. 107 113 72 The Metaphorical sense of Sheol and Hades is opened p. 108 It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret the same word in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell-torments and then secondly To signifie only the grave p. 109 * Add this as a Marginal Note to p. 109. In this Mr. Norton doth contradict his own rule in p. 76. which is That one and the same word especially not being typical is capable but of one sense in the same place The word Psuche for soul in the New Testament is most often put for the vital soul p. 111 320 CHAP. VIII MR. Norton doth often leave the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty because he doth one while affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse and only that and another while that he suffered only that
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
Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joyes of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have accorded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The founder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical sense of Hell may bee thus considered Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades except in one place and there it is translated The metaphorical sense of Sheol Haides Thanatos death the word in both languages is of large signification and it may be ranked into these senses First It signifies sorrows and afflictions Secondly Death to the person Thirdly The Grave to the body Fourthly The world of souls to the souls departed namely to the godly soul Paradise and to the wicked Gehenna for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dye whether they bee faithful and go to heaven or unfaithful and go to hell but Hades is first used for the hell of the damned in Luke 16. 2. Secondly For the penal hell of the godly in suffering persecutions and afflictions in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them 3 It is used for soul-sorrows when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time
in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 8. 15. Rom. 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ wâ—thin the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation is no part of the Gospel but in the second sense it is Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance is to make good his answer to the Dialogue namely that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works even as Damnation though it be no part of the Gospel yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel I say the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it and therefore he hath not as yet proved that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17. But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text for saith he in page 24 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited was a figure of Rom. 5 14. Christ to come Rom. 5. 14. Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited But in the effects that followed
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
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
is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justification with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their uncircumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8 though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14 there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Moses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not
the torments of Hell are called Chastisements If Mr. Norton had not been transported with a high conceit of his own erronious Tenents he would never have stumbled so as he doth at the word When in the Dialogue But Mr. Norton goes on in page 93. to prove his minor by the causal particle For by which saith he the Apostle doth prove the foregoing part of the Text. Reply 3. But I demand which foregoing part of the Text doth Mr. Norton mean that the Apostle doth prove for I have formerly shewed that there are two distinct clauses in the former part of the verse 1 It is said That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 It is said That he was made a curse for us If hee mean it of both these clauses then I deny that the causal particle For was so intended by the Apostle for I have before shewed that the Apostle did intend it only to confirm the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death 2 Mr. Norton in page 94. proves his former exposition thus If those words in Gal. 3. 13. Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree and that text in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree have both but one and the same sense Then saith hee what hinders that the foregoing part of the verse namely Redemption c. Reply 4. What hinders saith Mr. Norton hee knows well that Interrogations are no Arguments to prove what hee affirms he should have proved his affirmative and not demanded the question What hinders Toâ—n which Inference saith he in page 94. what is more abominable the typical reason excepted of signifying or typifying Christ bearing the moral curse upon the tree Reply 5. The Reader must here take special notice that Mr. Norton doth lay the weight of all his Arguments on the typical sense but you shall see ere long that his typical sense drawn from Deut. 21. 23. will as much fail him as his typical sense of the Tree of life hath done as I have already shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and then all his Arguments that are built upon it will prove but groundless fantasies or to use his own language hee will put an abominable inference on the Apostle and on the Spirit of God speaking by him SECT II. But saith Mr. Norton in page 94. There can be no sufficient or probable reason given why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this special Curse Whence followed the defiling of the land in case the body continued unburied after Sun-set above all other capital sufferings And saith he in page 96. in case they be not buried before Sun-set they shall defile the land And saith he in page 102. the principal scope of this text of Deut. 21. 23. is to give a Law concerning him that is hanged that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reason thereof annexed And in page 95. hee cites Junius to his typical exposition 1 I will give a reason why hanging on a tree is the greatest curse of all death And secondly that his not burial afore Sun-set doth not defile the whole land Reply 6. The Dialogue hath given a probable reason yea a certain reason why the Malefactor that was hanged upon a Stoning to death was counted the heaviest kind of death of all deaths in relation to the infamy of hanging up the dead body to be gazed on for their greater reproach for the hanging of the dead body was usually annexed to stoning to death tree was infamed with a greater curse than any other death 1 Saith the Dialogue in page 68. Not every sinner that deserved death by Thou the Sanhedrim is meant of this high degree of curse in their death but such sinners only as deserved to have their bodies hanged on a tree after they were stoned to death for God had given power to the Sanhedrim when they stoned Malefactors to death if the circumstances of their sin were of a high consideration to hang up their dead bodies on a tree for their greater reproach shame and ignominy and to be a spectacle to others as long as the Sun gave light but yet in any wise to bury him that day and thus Calvin on Deut. 21. 21. and Goodwin on Moses Rites and Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 21. 22. do accord with the Dialogue that hanging is for the greater curse after stoning to death 2 Saith the Dialogue the rebellious Son in Deut. 21. 21. is brought as an instance of this double punishment First He was stoned to death And then secondly His dead body was hanged on a tree to be gazed on for his further reproach and infamy and so for a higher degree of curse than his stoning to death was and from this particular instance Moses doth infer in vers 22. That if there be in a man that is to say in any other man besides the Rebellious Son a sin that is to say any other capital sin that is worthy of death that is to say of this double kind of death And Thou namely Thou the high Sanhedrim do hang him upon a tree that is to say after he hath been stoned to death his body shall not remain all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him that day because he had satisfied the curse of God 3 It is manifest That this kind of death was accounted not only of the Jews but of other Nations the most infamous of all kind of death Moses in Num. 25. 4. said Take the Princes and hang them up before the Sun The Seventy translate it make them open spectacles of shame for though other kinds of death were dreadful yet none so shameful as this kind of death and the curse of it is laid more on the shame than on the pain for in all other kinds of death as soon as the life was taken away by the executioners the body was presently taken away out of sight and covered from further reproach but these kind of persons that were first stoned to death and after hanged on a tree were therefore hanged that they might be a spectacle of further shame and reproach Or in case they were hanged alive according to the Roman manner and left hanging a certain time after their death to be a gazing stock a by-word and a reproach then that made that kind of death to be an accursed death above all other kinds of death For to be under the shame and reproach of men is a great curse of God and therefore shame reproach taunts by-words and curses are all joyned together as terms Synonimas in Jer. 24. 9. in Jer. 42. 18. in Jer. 44. 8 12. And for an innocent to bear these ignominious curses it must needs be a very dreadful thing to the outward man though his innocency may bear up his inward man as it doth in Martyrs and as it did in Christ
Heb. 12. 2. And seeing the Devil by Gods declared permission had power to put Christ to this ignominious and long lingring violent death as it is expressed in Gen. 3. 15. therefore it was Gods will that Christ should be sensible of it in the affections of his soul and in that respect his humane nature was often much troubled at the consideration of it as in Psal 69. 7. There Christ saith thus For thy sake have I born reproach shame hath covered my face It was thy declared will and command in Gen. 3. 15. that I should combate with Satan with mans true nature and affections and that he should have power to use me as a malefactor with the greatest ignominy that he could invent and at last peirce me in the foot-soals as a most ignominious malefactor on the tree and I must be sensible of all this as I am true man of the seed of the woman And therefore I say in ver 9. The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen on me and therefore I say in vers 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and I am full of heaviness These expressions of his soul-sorrows do tell us the true cause of Christs fear sadness and agony in the Garden in Matth. 26. 37 38. Mark 14. 34 35. and saith he in Psa 22. 6. I am a worm and no man a reproach of men and the despised of the people All that see me laugh me to scorn they shoot out the lip they shake the head saying he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him These words do directly relate to the shame of his death on the cross as Matthew doth open the sense in Matth. 27. 39 43. and therefore his kind of death is called The scandal of the cross Gal. 5. 11. And his suffering on the cross without the gate is called His reproach Heb. 13. 13. and reproach is a dreadful thing to the Saints and therefore they pray in Psal 119. 22. Remove far from me reproach and contempt and in vers 31. Put me not to shame And in Psal 89 50 51. Remember Lord the reproach of thy servants wherewith thine enemies have reproached O Lord wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine annointed And therefore Christ in Psal 40. 16. doth imprecate this curse upon them that brought this curse of shame upon him Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame that say unto me aha aha For saith Christ in Psal 109. 25. I became a reproach unto them on the cross they looked upon me they shaked their heads And we see by experience that men do account the shame of death to be worse than the pains of death and therefore Saul desired his Armor-bearer rather to kill him than the Philistims should come and mock him at his death 1 Sam. 31. 4. and Abimeleck willed his Armor-bearer to kill him rather than men should say to his greater shame that a woman had killed him Judg. 5. 54. for the more shame the more curse of God is in any death And the custom among the Jews was not to put malefactors to death by hanging but they used to hang up the dead body after it was stoned to death for the greater infamy to the sin and sinner therefore hanging among them was not used to denote the curse in respect of the pains of death but onely to set forth the curse of shame and reproach and therefore hanging among them could not be a type of the pains of the eternal curse But secondly It was the custom of the Romans to put the bafest sort of Malefactors to death by hanging and after death to let them hang for a time to be a spectacle of ignominy and reproach and therefore the pains of death was in that curse though chiefly the shame is intended by the Apostle in Gal. 3. 13. because it relates to the curse of hanging in Deut. 21. 23. mortis modus morte pejor And the Hebrew Doctors say they bewailed not him that went to be executed but onely mourned inwardly for him they bewailed him not that so say they his disgrace might be his expiation they it seems accounted that the more shame and punishment a condemned person suffered the more it tended to the expiation of his sin from the Land See Dr. Lightfoots Harmony on the New Testament p. 71. And Christ told his Disciples of the Ignominiousness of his death by the Romans that the Priests and Scribes should deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourgâ— and to crucifie him And the story of the Evangelists doth at large set forth the greatness of the curse that was in his death by mockings and revilings 1 They mocked his Prophetical Office saying Prophecy who it is that somte thee Mat. 26. 68. 2 They scoffed his Priestly Office saying He saved others himself he cannot save Mat. 27. 42. 3 They mocked his Kingly Office saying Hail King of the Jews Mat. 27. 28. and said They had no King but Caesar Joh. 19. 15. These and such like expressions do set out the scandal of his cross and so the greatness of the curse which Satan with all his might did multiply in a transcendent manner upon him if by any means he could disturb his patience and so pervert him in the course of his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and then Satan had got the victory but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the death of the cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice by his own Priestly power therefore he broke the Devils head and got the victory and so he won the prize And thus have I given a sufficient reason why those that were hanged on a tree were infamed with a greater curse of reproach than was by any other sort of capital death that was in use among the Jews or Romans Secondly I come now to examine the time of their burial And thirdly Whether the Land was defiled in case they continued unburied till after Sun-set For Mr. Norton saith That in case the body that was banged did continue unburied till after Sun-set it caused the whole land to be defiled ceremonially Reply 7. The time of the burial of the person hanged is not by the Text Deut. 21. 23. limited to sun-set as Mr Norton The time of the burial of the person hanged might be after sun-set provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight doth wrest the words of the Text to speak But the time limited in the Text is this He shall not hang all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him the same day Mark the phrase He shall not hang all night Hence it follows that he might hang some part of the night so he did not hang all night that is to say he might hang some part of the night provided they did bury him within the
Gods anger and so removed the curse from the Land after that Gods justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia as the sacrifice that was ordained to attone God for sin was called sin So then the true reason why the Judges were admonished not to let his carkass that was hanged continue hanging all night but to bury him the same day to cover and hide his carkass in the earth from further publick shame and ignominy because he had already satisfied Justice by hanging on a tree to be gazed on as long as the day light made him a spectacle which at some time of the year might be till it was near midnight where the natural day endeth So then the defect or want in the Hebrew Text may be supplied by any word or words that do explain the true sense as well as by is As thus thou shalt in any wise bury him the same day for he that is hanged to be gazed on as long as the day gives light to be gazed on hath appeased God and born the curse from the land and thereby he hath made attonement for the curse and so procured Gods favor to the Land And it is most evident by three remarkable examples that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure attonement to the land First The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ring-leaders of them that had coupled them to Baal Peor and to hang them up before the Lord against the Sun Numb 25. 4. Numb 25. 4. 1 It must be done before the Lord namely openly by the publick Judges for God is still with them in the cause and judgement 2 Chron. 19. 6. Deut. 17. 1. Psa 82. 1. 2 It must be done against the Sun namely in the open view of all persons as long as the Sun did give any light upon the face of the earth and because Phineas did execute judgement upon some of the chief of these sinners therefore in ver 13. he is said to make attonement for Israel Secondly David commanded the seven sons of Saul to be hanged up before the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 9. namely by the sentence of justice 2 Sam. 21. 9. but the Gibeonites said to David in v. 6. We will hang them up to the Lord namely to appease his fierce anger against the land and in that respect their hanging is said in ver 3. to make attonement and to this sense the Chalde paraphrase doth render the sense of Deu. 21. 23. for because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged namely to appease his wrath And all that are hanged before the Lord that is to say openly by the sentence of these Judges are said also to be hanged up to the Lord to appease his wrath and so both phrases do demonstrate the same thing and thus to do Justice and Judgement upon sinners is more acceptable to the Lord to attone his wrath than sacrifice Pro. 21. 3. Thirdly Achan was a cursed person in his death though his dead body was not hanged but burnt with fire because he had sinned in the cursed thing namely in the consecrated gold which God had cursed to any that did purloin it and therefore God said unto Joshua I will be with you no more except yee destroy that cursed person Josh 7. 12. For Israel hath transgressed the Covenant which I commanded them ver 11. But why doth he say that Israel transgressed seeing Achan alone sinned in a secret manner The Answer is Because it was Gods will to make such a supream voluntary Law and Covenant with all Israel that if but one man sinned in the excommunicate thing it should involve all Israel under the curse Josh 6. 18. untill they had purged themselves by the use of means to find out the transgressor but as soon as they had found out the transgressor and had executed Justice and buried his burnt body under a heap of stones the Lord was appeased to the people and turned from his fierce wrath Josh 7. 25 26. and so the Camp was cleansed Hence I do once more conclude that the onely true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was not because else the Land would be ceremonially defiled as Mr. Norton doth argue but because one days open hanging on a tree as long as the light did last to be gazed on did satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie his wrath and therefore the Judges are admonished not to let his body hang all night but in any case to bury him the same day because he that is thus hanged hath born the curse that else would have fallen on the land and the Jews say That as soon as a Malefactor had satisfied justice by his See Trap on Gal. 3. 13. death then the tree whereon he was hanged the sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed must be buried with them that no evill memorial of them might remain to say this was the tree sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed But still this must bee remembred that in some extraordinary cases God permitted the Magistrates to let some notorious Malefactors to hang on a Tree not only for one day but also for many dayes together and yet the land was not defiled but cleansed thereby of which see more in n. 8. 6 Having now finished the former reason why the person hanged must be buried the same day namely because in the ordinary course of justice one dayes hanging on a tree did satisfie Gods justice and so remove the curse from the land as it is expressed in this sentence He that is hanged hath born the curse of God And at the end of this sentence the Geneva and Tindal have made a full stop and the other Translations have made a colon or a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of
But the immortal righteous Son of God coming to die for us in whose flesh because there could be no sin he suffered the punishment of sin without the guilt thereof wherefore he admitted for us the second part of the first death that is to say the death of the body onely by which he took from us the dominion of sin and the pain of eternal punishment And saith he in Ser. 129. There is a first and a second death of the first death there are two parts one when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator and the other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods Justice The second death is the everlasting torment of body and soul This distinction of the first and second death Mr. Norton disputes against And in Epist 99. He saith Surely the soul of Christ was neither dead with any sin nor punished with damnation which are the two ways how the death of the soul may possibly be understood But Mr. Norton hath found out a third way for the death of Christs soul by his penal Hell in this world which he makes to have the same essential torments that are in fiery Gehenna 16. Beda in Homil. Feria 4. in Quadragesuna saith Christ coming to us that were in death of Body and Spirit suffered onely one death that is the death of the flesh and freed us of both our deaths he applied his ONE DEATH to our double death and vanquished them both 17. Albinus in Quaest on Genesis saith What is meant by this Thou shalt die the death It meaneth a double death in man to wit Soul and Body the death of the Soul is when God for sin forsaketh it the death of the Body is when through any necessity the body is deprived of the soul This double death of ours Christ destroyed with his single death for he died onely in the flesh for a time but in soul he never died who never sinned 18. Bernard ad milites Templi c. 11. saith Of our two deaths whereof the one is the desert of sin the other the due punishment Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles he dyed willingly and onely in body he meriteth for us life and righteousness Had Mr. Norton lived in their days durst he have condemned this Doctrine for Heresie as now he doth I trow not he might rather have expected a sharp censure from them 19. Bullenger on Isa 53. 10. Homil. 153. saith Whole Christ was the expiation of our sins though during that time neither his Divinity suffered nor his soul dyed but his flesh whereof the blessed Fathers Vigilius and Fulgentius have religiously discoursed against Hereticks 20. No other death but a bodily death was typified as I have shewed from Lev. 17. 11. and this also was typified by the death of the High Priest which was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant for the redemption of the exiled person that was exiled by the Law for unwitting murder for by the Law he was to continue an exile as long as the High Priest lived but as soon as the High Priest was dead be it longer or shorter in time then not till then the exiled person was thereby redeemed from the avenger of blood Num. 35. 25. and this Numb 35. 25. makes the reason of the type to be the more eminent because in all other Nations the unwitting Man-slayer is freed at the first Sessions of Justice but by Gods positive Ordinance in Israel he must continue an exile till the death of the High Priest hee could not be redeemed sooner nor by any other way from the danger of the avenger of blood but onely by the death of the High Priest this is an evident type of our redemption by the bodily death and sacrifice of our High Priest Christ Jesus 21. The Reader shall find in several other Chapters several other Divines that do accord with these Hence two Conclusions do follow First That Christs soul was not spiritually dead with the second death as Mr. Norton doth unadvisedly hold for an Orthodox Evangelical Tenet Secondly That his death was a true bodily death namely such a bodily death as in the formality of it was a Sacrifice But Mr. Norton in p. 70. saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should onely suffer a bodily death And saith he in p. 59. It had been of none effect if he had suffered onely a bodily death and to this effect he speaks in p. 170 173 174. 160 162 c. 22. But for the better clearing of the true nature of Christs See Carlile in his descent p. 144 c. death I will out of Christopher Carlile describe the vital soul Nephes saith Carlile is never applied to the immortal soul in all the Bible 2 Saith he Nephes which the Greeks have translated Psyche A true description of the vital soul the Latines animam the English soul hath its name in Hebrew Chaldee Greek and Latine of breathing because it cooleth and refresheth with respiring and breathing page 145. 3 Nephes consisteth in blood breath life vital spirit affâ—ctions and passions c. As for example 1 Nephes is the blood Lev. 17. 4 10 11. the life of every living creature is in the blood And this Nephes is mortal and therefore it is called Nephes Caja but the immortal spirit is called Neshama Cajim the spirit of lives This is immortal and dyes not as Nephes Caja doth 2 This Nephes is often put for the vital soul as in Gen. 35. 18. Gen. 44. 30. Exod. 4. 19. Jos 2. 13. Isa 53. 10 11 12. c. in page 149. 3 Nephes is put for the mind heart and inward parts Prov. 16. 24. Prov. 19. 18. Prov. 23. 6. Prov. 25. 12. 4 Nephes is put for the affections either of joy or sorrow as in Psal 25. 1. it is put for cheerful affections See Ainsworth there and in Psal 86. 4. It is also put for the affections of compassion in Isa 58. 10. It is also put for the affections of sorrow and sadness 1 Sam. 1. 15. Psal 42. 5. Psal 62. 9. Lam. 2. 12. It is also put for vexation of mind Deut. 28. 65. It is also put for the grief and pain which they sustained in captivity as it is expounded in vers 64. 66. and 2 King 4. 27. Job 7. 11. Job 10. 1. Psal 13. 2. It is also put for the inward powers Job 21. 23. Psal 107. 26. Prov. 14. 1. Likewise in the New Testament Psyche the vital soul is put 1 For a willing heart Eph. 66. Col. 3. 23. 2 For one mind Act. 4. 31. Phi. 1. 27. 3 For the heart soul and mind Matth. 22. 37. Toto tuo sensitivo as Lyra interpreteth with all thy wisdome diligence and cogitation as Chrysostome with all thy life and with all thy mind as Austin with all thy will and mind as Glossa ordinaria with all thy life which thou oughtest
23. for he died not like other men but as a Master of death 13 Lyra in Mat. 27. on these words Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his soul saith Whereby it appeareth that voyce was not natural but miraculous Because a man afflicted with great and long torment and through such affliction near unto death could not so cry by any strength of nature 14 Austin de Tri. lib. 4. c. 13. saith It is the death of the Spirit to be forsaken of God as it is the death of the body to be forsaken of the Spirit and this is the punishment in the death of the body that the spirit because it willingly forsook God should unwillingly leave the body neither can the spirit leave the body when it will unless it offer some violent death to the body The Spirit of the Mediator did plainly prove that he came to the death of his flesh by no punishment of sin in that he forsook not his flesh by any means against his will but quia voluit quando voluit quomâ—do voluit Because he would when he would and as he would Therefore he said I have power to lay down my soul and power to take it again no man taketh it from me but I have power to lay it down of my self and this those that were present greatly marvelled at as the Gospel observeth when after that loud voyce he presently gave up the Ghost for they that were fastened to the tree were tormented with a long death wherefore the two Theeves had their legs broken that they might die but Christ was wondered at because he was found dead which thing we read Pilat marvelled at when Christs body was asked of him to be buried Three things are remarkable in these words of Austin 1 That the death of the body was inflicted on all mankind for the punishment of sin in which death the soul must depart from the body against her will and not when she would or as she would 2 That the manner of Christs death was clean contrary to ours because he gave up his spirit by his own accord and power when he would and as he would 3 That his giving up the Ghost so presently upon his loud prayer was wondered at by the standers by and by Pilat himself when he heard it 15 Bernard Feria 4. Heb. panosa saith Christ alone had power to lay down his soul none took it from him bowing his dead being obedient to the death he gave up the Ghost who can so easily sleep when he will To die is a great infirmity but so to die was plainly an exceeding power he onely had power to lay down his soul who onely had like free power to take it again having the rule of life and death 16 Ambros De Incar Dom. Sacram. c. 5. saith Christ having power in himself to lay aside his body and take it again he sent forth his soul he lost it not 17 Eusebius Demon. Evang. l. 1. c. 8. saith When no man had power over Christs soul he himself of his own accord laid it down for man Ibidem lib. 3. ch 6. So loosed from all force and Resting free himself of himself made the departure from his body 18 Erasmus in his Paraphrase in Luk. 23. saith Jesus when with a mighty cry he had said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit breathed out his soul to make it manifest to all that he did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying but streightway upon a strong cry and words distinctly pronounced he laid down his life as of his own accord Ibid. In Mark 15. When the Centurion that stood over-right as a Minister and Witness of his death and had seen many dye with punishment when hee saw Jesus besides the manner of other men after a strong cry presently to breath out his soul said Truly this man was the Son of God 19 Musculus in Matth. 27. saith That Christ sending forth his soul with a loud voyce is a proof of a greater power than may be found in a man dying whereby he sheweth that he laid off his soul of his own accord answerable to that I have power to lay down my soul and to take it again to which end John saith that bowing his head he gave up the Ghost others first die and then their heads fall but he first layeth down his head and then of his own accord delivereth up his soul to his Father 20 Gualter in Joh. 6. 9. saith But let us see the manner of Christs death who as John writeth with bowing down his head yeelded up the spirit Luke saith be cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Here find we manifest Arguments of his Divinity which the Centurion and others observed as some of the Evangelists witness 1 That cry and distinct pronouncing of his last words sheweth a power and vertue more than humane for we know that men dying so faint that most of them cannot speak be it never so softly 2 He dieth when he will of himself yea and layeth off his soul with authority to shew himself Lord of life and death which is an evident proof of his divine power 21 Marlorat on these words in Matth. 27. Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his spirit saith Christ declareth his Majesty in that he layeth down his soul not when men constrain him but when himself will whereupon Pilat marvelled that Christ was so soon dead and the Lord himself said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it again to which it appertaineth that is written he bowing his head gave up his spirit For other men first die and then their heads hang but Christ first laid down his head and then voluntarily rendred his soul into the hands of his father 22 Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue pag. 101. speaks pertinently to the judgements of these Divines and cites Austin concurring with him 23 Mr. John Smith of Clavering in his grounds of Religion pag. 59. asketh this Question How did Christ die Ans He dyed not with extremity of pain as others do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as
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
Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed righteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 5. 3. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the sinner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety â—s free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promised Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but
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
Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a Doctrine but of late The imputation of our sins to Christ as is asserted by Mr. Noâ—ton is a doctrine but of late dayes dayes though now it is grown somewhat common for as it is affirmed by Mr. Wotton it was not known in the dayes of the Ancient Fathers and the Discourse from Grotius formerly cited affirms as much But I will leave the Judicious to inquire further both into the antiquity and verity of it that so the truth may be preserved to succeeding generations 8 The Dialogue doth reason thus If you say that God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing our sins to him Then from the same kind of phrase you must also say that Christ made himself sin by imputing the guilt of all our sins to himself for Isaiah doth tell us that hee set made or put himself to bee Asham a Guilt or a Trespasse for us so the Hebrew Text doth speak in Isa 53. 10. or as the Septuagint translate it He made himself to be sin for us and therefore it follows by the like consequence from this phrase that hee must in like sort in a judicial way inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to our sins and trespasses To this comparative Argument drawn from the likenesse of the phrase Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and judge Christ accepts the charge of a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a Surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge Reply 7. And why doth not Christ execute that vindicative justice upon himself that is the part of a supreme Judge Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilâ—y sinner as much as ever hâ—s Father did as well as his Father seeing hee doth impute our sins to himself by the same phrase cited as much as the Father doth But the judicious Reader may soon see that Mr. Nortons answer is but an evasion to the Dialogues Argument For the Dialogue in the margent saith thus Christ did impute all our sins and trespasses to himself as much as ever the Father did for Isaiah doth tell us That he set or put himself to be Asham a Trespasse or a guilt for us or to be sin for us as the Septuagint render it and hence the Dialogue doth make this comparative Argument If God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing all our sins and trespasses to him as the obligation to his suffering of our curse from Gods vindicative wrath then from the same kind of phrase it doth necessarily follow that Christ made himself to be Asham a Trespasse a guilt or sin by his legal imputing of our sins to himself and so by the same rule of Court-justice hee must likewise in a judicial way inflict the essential torments of Hell upon himself from his vindicative wrath Mr. Norton makes no answer to this Argument but instead thereof hee saith That Christ accepts the charge as a Surety but did not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge but any man may see that by the force of the Argument in the Dialogue that Christ must impute sin to himself and inflict the curse as much as his Father or in case an answer can bee found to excuse Christ from this vindicative act of justice then the same answer will excuse the Father from the said legal imputation of our sins and from his vindicative act of justice also But if this phrase God made him to be sin doth argue that God made Christ a guilty sinner by his imputation then this phrase Christ made himself to be sin will argue that Christ made himself to be a guilty sinner by his own imputation and then hee must execute as a supreme Judge his own vindicative wrath upon himself as well as the Father This absurd consequence saith the Dialogue you cannot avoid And thus saith the Dialogue by this kind of arguing you make Christ to be his own self Accuser and his own self Executioner But the truth is saith the Dialogue Christ did no otherwise make himself to be a Trespasse a guilt or sin but as hee made himself to be a Trespasse-offering and a Sin-offering by which offering once for all he ended Trespasse offerings and finished Sin offerings and thereby made Reconciliation for iniquity or reconciled God to beleeving sinners and so brought in or procured an eternal Righteousnesse instead of the Ceremonial sanctifications or justifications which served to the purifying of the flesh Dan. 9. 29. SECT IV. I Find also that other eminent Divines do agree with Mr. Wotton and with the Ancient Divines afore cited touching the manner how Christ was made sin for us 1 That blessed Martyr Tindal saith That in Exod. 29. and See Tindals Works in p. 4â—9 and Frith in p. 13â— in Lev. 8. and almost every where saith he The Beast offered for sin is called Sin which use of speaking saith hee Paul useth in Rom. 83. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. he calleth Christ Sin when Christ is neither sin nor sinful but an acceptable sacrifice for sin and yet saith he he is called our sin because he bare our sins on his back and because our sins are consumed and made no sins through him If wee forsake our sins and beleeve in Christ for the remission thereof And saith he on Rom. 8. 3. Sin is taken for a Sin-offering after the use of the Hebrew tongue And saith hee in page 160. Christ is no sinner but a satisfaction and an offering for sin And saith hee in page 439. Consider and mark how the Kid or Lamb must bee without spot or blemish and so onely was Christ of all mankind in the sight of God and of his Law Mark this last sentence in the sight of God and of his Law this is point blank against Mr. Nortons Tenent as by the places cited out of him in Chapter 6. may bee soon seen 2 John Frith and Dr. Barns whose works are joyned to Tindal have no other imputation of sin to Christ but his voluntary taking of our punishments according to Mr. Wotton and the Ancient Fathers 3 Frith cites Fulgentius de fide thus In those carnal sacrifices in the time of the Law was a signification of the flesh of Christ which hee without sin should offer for our sins 4 Marbeck in his Common places saith that Austin did well say sed nostra delicta sua delicta fecit ut suam justitiam nostram justitiam faceret that is saith hee by way of Paraphrase he was counted and deemed as a sinner because that in his unjust suffering In his Com. pl. p 1026. hee might justly save sinners that beleeve in him And saith he the most part of the learned Expositors bee of this mind and he doth not paraphrase on
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
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
again Joh. 10. 17. No man taketh it from me I lay it down of my self ver 18. The Son of man came to serve and to give his soul for the ransom of many Mat. 20. 28. He made his soul a sin Isa 53. 10. and powred out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. Thirdly Saith Fulgentius The whole man Christ laid down his soul when his soul departed dying on the Cross Ad Transi li. 3. In this sentence you see that Fulgentius speaks of two souls in Christ First Saith he Christ laid down his vital soul And then secondly saith he his immortal soul departed dying on the Cross Fourthly The soul that died in Christ for our redemption was this vital soul for this kind of soul hath its seat in The death of satisfaction was by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death the blood Gen. 9. 4. and when Christ shed his blood this soul of his was powred out and then his immortal soul departed and this was typified by the vital soul of the beast that was in the blood of the Levitical Sacrifices in Lev. 17. 11. and see Ains also in Deut. 12. 23. the soul of the flesh iâ— in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make attonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh attonement for the soul this I noted in the Dialogue pag. 94. and this positive ceremonial type was given to the Jews to exemplifie their attonement and redemption by the shedding of the vital soul that was in the blood of Christ and our Saviour did confirm this to be a truth at his last Supper saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you and for the many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. And he was the Mediator of the New Testament by this death Heb. 9. 15. And his death in ver 15 16 17. is exemplified by the bodily death of men whose death doth make the legacies of their testament to be valid and so in like sort until Christ had powred out his vital soul his Legacies of the New Testament were not confirmed but as soon as that act was done they were all confirmed for the many Dan. 9. 27. And by his death he is said to make peace or attonement Col. 1. 20. as Aarons incense did in Numb 16. 44. See Ains and by which we have redemption Ephes 1. 7. and by which we are ransomed Matth. 20. 28. It is this vital blood of Christ that cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. This vital blood of Christ was it that was ordained to procure Gods everlasting attonement for all our moral sins even as the blood of Buls c. was ordained to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins Heb. 9. 12 13 14 15 16. Heb. 10. Fifthly saith P. Martyr Because blood is the life God P. Martyr in his com pl. par 2. p. 581. would signifie that sin is not purged by sacrifice unless it were by death Sixthly Mr. Carlile doth thus paraphrase on Lev. 17. 11. I have appointed the blood to be an expiation and purgation for you even for your sins for it is this blood that purgeth you Seventhly From the springing up of corn after it is dead in the earth Christ brings a similitude of his death and of the fruit of his death Joh. 12. 24. None that I can find interpret this death of any other death but the true bodily death and sacrifice of Christ Eighthly Tindal saith thus Paul concludeth in Heb. 9. 16 17. Tindals works p. 462. that Christ must needs have dyed saying That wheresoever a Testament is there must the death of the Testament-maker go between or else the Testament is not ratified and sure But saith he Righteousness and Remission of sins in Christs blood is the New Testament whereof hee is the Mediator Ergo The Testament-maker must needs have dyed And saith he he must or it behoved him to die for he took our very mortal nature for the same decreed council saying It behoved that the Son of man must die Joh. 12. Tindal laies the whole weight of all the blessings of the new Covenant on the bodily death of Christ he makes no mention of the spirituall death of Christs soul And saith he in pag. 257. The offerings of Christs body and blood is the onely satisfaction for our sins And saith he There is no other way to salvation but by Christs death and passion and he speaks this of his bodily death And saith he whosoever goeth unto God and unto forgiveness of sins or salvation by any other way than this the same is an Heretick Here Tindal opposeth his judgement of Heresie to Mr. Nortons judgement Ninethly We die a double death saith Chrysostom as I formerly cited him therefore we must look for a double Resurrection But Christ saith he dyed but one kind of death therefore he rose but one kind of Resurrection Adam dyed both in body and soul he dyed to sin and to nature c. The first is the death of the soul the other is the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishments 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 Tenthly Theodoret in Dialogue 3. saith How could the soul of our Saviour having an immortal nature and not touched with the least spot of sin be possibly taken with the hook of death In these words he doth plainly and sully deny the spiritual death of Christs immortal soul and therefore he is point blank against Mr. Norton Eleventhly Cyril de Recta fide ad Reginas l. 1. saith If wee conceive Christ to be God incarnate and suffering in our flesh the death of his flesh alone sufficeth for the redemption of the world Twelfthly Fulgentius and fifteen Bishops of Africa made this confession of their Faith The death of the Son of God which he suffered in his flesh alone destroyed in us both our deaths to wit the death of the soul and body But Mr. Norton holds this confession made in the Dialogue to bee Heresie Thirteenthly Fulgentius ad Transimundum l. 3. c. 7. saith When the flesh onely died and was raised again in Christ the Son of God is said to have died Ibidem c. 5. The flesh dying not onely the Deity but the soul of Christ cannot be shewed to have been dead also Fourteenthly Gregory on Job l. 4. c. 17. Coming to us who were in the death of the spirit and flesh Christ brought his ONE DEATH to us and loosed both our deaths his single death he applied to our double death and dying vanquished our double death Fifteenthly August in ser 162. saith
the Grace of Joy in the good of Gods promises for that is one of the Graces Gal. 5. no not then when his sufferings were most grievous to his flesh his Joy in the apprehension of Gods Fatherly love in his promises was not then interrupted and therefore out of that his never interrupted apprehension or rather joyful view of the light of Gods countenance and of the good of his promises he like a conquering Combater indured the cross and dispised the shame Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christs soul was as full of Grace as the Sun is full of light without any eclipse and as full of Grace as the Sea is full of water without any ebb as it is acknowledged by almost all Divines how can it be true which Mr. Norton affirms that he was in the spiritual death of his soul when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For where there is any true Grace there the soul is spiritually made alive and therefore true Grace is called the Grace of life 1 Pet. 3. 7. where the Spirit of God abides there the soul is in life and therefore the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Life Rom. 8. 2. and therefore Christ could not be in the spiritual death of his soul because he always had the Spirit of Grace in him above measure Abominable then to God must that doctrine needs be which Mr. Norton hath published that makes Christs soul to be under the power of a spiritual death Some learned Divines do say That none can die the second spiritual death in soul before they die the first death in sin therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity that makes Christs soul to be spiritually dead under the pain of loss and sense for by that Doctrine he doth also necessarily make him to be devoid of all Grace and so consequently to be spiritually dead in sin which is horrible blasphemy 2 His Tenent in making Christs soul to be without the comfort of a promise at the very instant when he made his soul a sacrifice doth make Christ to be a blemished Priest and so consequently it makes his death and sacrifice to be an abomination to God for a Priest that is a mourner in soul is a blemished Priest therefore a Priest must not be a mourner in soul at the time of offering any sacrifice Lev. 10. 19. 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring Gods Reconciliation and Gods Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoycing Num. 12. 14. Lev. 10. 19 20. Deut. 16. 11 15. Neh. 8. 9. doubtless therefore all Christs soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satans ill usage was fully over as soon as he had done his prayers in the Garden and yet I grant also that when he hung upon the Cross he was under most grievous tortures and pains to his sences but yet I say also that those pains born with perfect patience did not hinder the sweet sense of his inward joy that had both conquered Satan and made reconciliation with God and that now had recovered the Elect and so had divided the spoil with the strong adversary Satan which act of dividing the spoil is always done with joy 1 Sam. 30. 26. Heb. 1â— 2. Isa 9. 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa 53. 12. I will divide saith God and he shall divide the spoyl with the strong 7 Take Mr. Nortons words into consideration in p. 89. Christ saith he knew that God was his Mat. 27. 46. fully understood the glory of the blessed and that his soul presently upon his dissolution should be in Paradice Luk. 23. 43. Doth not Mr. Norton in these words prove that Christ was not totally deprived of the sense of the goods of the promises For now in his greatest torments on the Cross he saith he promised paradise to himself as well as to the penitent theef and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion SECT 4. Secondly I come now to shew that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross in the formality of his death Reply 15. I Grant that God by his declared permission to Satan in Gen. 3. 15. did allow him so much power as to pierce Christ in the foot-soals namely to crucifie him as a sinful malefactor with the soars of death just like to other malefactors that were formally killed thereby But yet for all this I say also that God did not give the Devil so much power as to put Christ to death formally because he had ordained Christ to have a Priestly power in the formality of his death by his unchangeable oath to the end that he might make his death a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to Covenant But in case he had been put to death formally by the power of Satan and his Instruments then his death could not have been a sacrifice unless he will say that God ordained the Devil to be a Priest it could have been no more but a death of Martyrdom But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin Reply 16. In this speech M. Norton doth much wrong the sense of the blessed Scriptures for in Joh. 10. 17 18. Christ saith This commandement have I received of my Father to let none take away my life from me formally but to lay it down or as Tendal translates it to put it from me of my self Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christs death and the death of all other men as I shall more at large expounded this Scripture by and by 2 His death is called a sacrifice and none could make it to be a sacrifice but such a Priest as was called of God to be the Priest and no other act could make it to be a sacrifice but such an act of such a Priest as did formally take away the life of the sacrifice Therefore he must be the onely Priest in the formality of his own death Heb. 9. 26 28. 10. 12. and no other mans death is called a sacrifice formally but his 3 All other men die by co-action because they are sinners in Adam but Christ was no sinner therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court-Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put
therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Joh. 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10 compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of savour Heb. 10. 10. The woâ—d Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness namely into Gods gracious favour again as Adam was in his innocency And saith Baxter to Molivaeus p. 181. It is the same act of God that is called constitutive justification and pardon of sin so far as Justification is taken as comprehending onely the restoring of us to the happiness that we fell from But this I perceive is a Riddle to Mr. Norton for in p. 209. he saith to be sinless is not enough to make a sinner righteous but if he will but search better into the Ceremonial Types he may see that it is Gods forgiveness from his attonement procured by legal washings and by the blood of beasts by which all Israel were sanctified or made a holy people again as the legal Heb. 9
our Saviour if we be more willing as we should to take a sense from the Scripture than to bring one to it doth not the whole context saith he evince it And in p. 55. he cites Irenaeus to the same sense our Lord saith Irenaeus instead Ireâ—aeâ—s of Thou shalt not commit Adultery commands not so much as to lust Instead of Thou shalt not kill not so much as to be angry Instead of to tithe to distribute all we have to the poor c. all which saith he is not of one that dissolves the Law but fulfilleth and inlargeth it Secondly Mr. Burges saith Although it be true that Christ Vindiciae legis p. 177. may be said to fulfil the Law divers wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his Doctrinal fulfilling of it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking the Law And in p. 253. he saith thus Christ is said to fulfill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it and in p. 273. lect 29. He opens Mat. 5. 17. 18. to his former sense Thirdly Tindal saith thus Here hast thou dear Reader an In his Prolog in Mat. 5. 17 18. Exposition of Matth. 5 6 and 7. Chapters wherein Christ our spiritual Isaak hath digged again the Wells of Abraham which the Scribes and Pharisees had stopped and filled up with the earth of their false Expositions he restoreth the key of knowledge And on vers 17. he saith thus I came not to destroy the Law but to repair it onely and to make it go upright where it halteth And presently after I do but onely wipe away the filth and rotten glosses wherewith the Scribes and Pharisees have smeared the Law And saith he in vers 21 22. Christ beginneth not to destroy the Law as the Pharisees had falsly accused him but to restore it again to the right understanding and to purge it from the glosses of the Pharisees And saith he in vers 48. This Text doth not say ye shall be as perfect as God but perfect after his example To be perfect saith he is to have pure Doctrine without false Opinions and that thy heart be to follow that learning Fourthly Dr. Barnes answers the Popish Justiciaries thus Barns in Tindal p. 229. Our Master Christ in Mat. 5. doth there reprove the false interpretation which they did set to the Law but he teacheth no new works nor is a giver of any new Law Fifthly Marlorat on Mat. 5. 17 18. saith The Law is destroyed or broken when it is made void and of none effect by false Expositions and traditions of men or else by a wicked life but here he understandeth the destroying of the Law after the first manner namely by false expositions and therefore it follows that Christ came to fulfill it by filling up the sense for the regulating of the inward as well as of the outward man Sixthly Mr. Blake on Mat. 5. 18. saith thus Christ indeed as In vindiciae Foederis p. 49. See also Dr. Hammonds Annot on Mat. 5. 17 18 in his Practical Cat. p. 104 105. in his 5. Edâ—tion soon as he publickly appeared in the work of Redemption was charged that he came to destroy the Law but this he did utterly disavow professing that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and saith he presently after Christ asserts a necessity of a higher degree of obedience than the Scribes and Pharisees taught or practised saying Except your righteousness exceed c. which must be understood of righteousness inherent in conformity to the Law as it appears by the precedent words and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow and upon this occasion Christ openeth the Commandements of the Law and how far we must transcend them if ever we come to the Kingdom of Heaven And to this purpose doth Mr. Ball expound Mat. 5. 18. on the Covenant p. 111. Seventhly I will now conclude with Mr. Calvin Although saith Calvin Christ might worthily have boasted that he came to fulfill the Law with the perfection of his life yet here notwithstanding he treateth of Doctrine and not of his Life You see that Calvin doth deny that Christ spake of fulfilling Calvin on Mat. â— 17 18. the Law in Matth. 5. 18. in Mr. Nortons sense he treates here saith Calvin of Doctrine and not of his life much less of suffering the essential punishment of the curse as Mr. Norton would have this Text to speak for the proof of his Assumption I may justly retort his own words against himself in p. 145. Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures which he hath mis alledged against the Dialogue but know the erring and private interpretation of them to be but a very fallacy of putting that for a cause which is not a cause namely that which is not a divine Testimony for a divine Testimony The letter of the Scripture alleged not according to its sense is not Scripture No Hereticks or Hetrodox as such ever cited the word of God His second Argument is this in pag. 11. Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that commination He that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true 1 Sam 15. 29. Tit. 1. 2. Reply This Argument is just like the former they are both founded on the same supposition namely that the essential curse of hell torments threatned in the first Covenant must either be executed on the Elect or on their Surety in their stead As for his proof of his Proposition The soul that sinneth shall die Ezek. 18. 20. This Text I have examined and brought it from the Context to speak to another sense in chap. 6. at Reply 9. 2 As for that in Gen. 2. 17. I have denied it in his sense in the former Argument But it had been more true if he had framed his Argument thus Either the Elect suffered the spiritual death in sin threatned on all mankind in Gen. 2. 17. or else God is not true as I have opened the sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But God is true c. His third Argument is this in pag. 11. He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7. 22. Reply I deny the major for I have shewed in Chap. 2. that if it were indeed true that Christ was a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his debt of obedience and to suffer the curse of his disobedience according to the conditions of the first Covenant Then 1. Christ must go to the land of Eden to eat of the tree of Life that so he may truly perform that act of obedience for Adam And 2. He must be dead in
sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priest-hood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Ains in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8 which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscienceâ— for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Judah and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20. 21 22. God sware and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That he would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates it for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his eighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige â—â— to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not obligue us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. n. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and