see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 1â— It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 Heb. 9. 27 28 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these three Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numeriee and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would sain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not
should bee judged to everlasting life and so the sentence of their bodily death should at the last bee turned into a blessing to them But secondly That such as beleeved not their Redemption by this seed of the woman the sentence of their bodily death should bring a greater judgement to them because it should be an inlet to their eternal death in hell Joh. 3. 36. 7 Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That when God proclaimed this Combate and victory he did exemplifie the manner of the victory to Adam by the death of some Lamb which God commanded Adam to offer in Sacrifice as I have shewed it more at large in my Treatise of the Institution of the Sabbath and ever after God did exemplifie the same to the Fathers both before and after the Flood 1 Before the Flood it is said That Abel did offer a better sacrifice than Cain because he offered it in faith Gen. 4. Heb. 11. 4. 2 Immediately after the Flood Noah is said to offer sacrifice for a sweet savor of rest unto God Gen. 8. 21. because such Sacrifices were ordained to typifie Gods full rest and sweet content in the perfect obedience of Christ first in his Combate and at last in his Sacrifice as it is opened in Eph. 5. 2. 3 After this God is said to preach the Gospel unto Abraham Gal. 3. 8 16. and how else did he preach the Gospel but by declaring in what manner the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents Head-plot and therefore when God renewed his Promise and Covenant of blessedness to Abraham by telling him that this Seed of the woman should come out of his loyns He gave this Testimony of Abraham That he did obey his voyce and keep his charge his Commandements his Statutes and his Laws Gen. 26. 5. And that he would teach his children and his houshold after him as all the godly Fathers did to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18. 19. namely to keep the way of true Religion or the way of Redemption by the Seed of the woman that was promised to come out of his loyns 4 After this it pleased the Lord to separate Israel to be his peculiar people in Covenant And then at Mount Sinai he gave them the ten Commandements as a Covenant of Grace as many learned Divines do of late rightly call it for the regulating of their faith and obedience in the course of their lives together with certain other voluntary ceremonial and typical Laws and with certain Judicial Laws many of which were also typical and these Laws in their outward bodily use were called the first Covenant of works in respect of their lawful and legal appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary but the same Laws in their mystical and spiritual use were given as a Covenant of grace and as the Law of faith though after a while the Jews under the New Testament did mistake Gods end in giving them for they did relye upon their outward obedience to them as Idolaters do for their eternal justification and salvation 5 Besides these typical ceremonial Laws It pleased God to ordain some other voluntary positive ceremonial Laws which were no way typical in relation to our redemption by Christ as the former were but were ordained only for the trial of some particular mans obedience in some one particular act and such was the command of God to Saul to destroy the Amalekites utterly without sparing any thing 1 Sam. 15. And such also was the command of God to David to hang up seven of Sauls sons to pacifie his wrath though some of them if not all of them might be innocent of Sauls sin 2 Sam. 21. And such also was the command of God to the young Prophet not to eat any bread in that place nor to return the same way that he came 1 King 13. 9. c. This insuing controversie hath relation often to some one or other of these Laws and Covenants as also to the Law of Suretiship for life in the case of capital crimes In all which Laws and Covenants your Lordship cannot but have a deep inspection and therefore I have the rather been bold to dedicate this insuing Controversie to your Honours judgement And now my humble Request to your Honour is 1 That where you find any thing that doth not accord to the truth in your judgement that you will bee pleased either to vouchsafe me your Animadversions or else to lay it aside in silence as you do other mens Tenents that you like not 2 That where you find any thing that doth accord to the truth which my soul loveth and longeth after that you will be pleased to vouchsafe it so much grace in your sight as to protect and defend it according to God whereof I nothing doubt as being verily perswaded that your Lordship doth account it your greatest honour to be every way serviceable to God and his truth as it is in Jesus And that you may be still guided in the ways of truth and life until you obtain the end of your faith even the salvation of your soul It is the hearty prayer of Your Honours most humble servant WILLIAM PYNCHON TO THE Considerate and Judicious Reader IN this insuing Reply both to Mr. Nortons Foundation-principles and also to his several Answers to the Dialogue called The Meritorious price of mans Redemption I do often conclude my several Replies with this intreaty to the Judicious Reader to judge between us which of us doth give the rightest sense of the blessed Scriptures in these insuing Controversieâ— Paul did much commend the Synagogue of the Bereans for their better more noble and more ingenuous disposition beyond the Synagogue of the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so or no as Paul had taught in their Synagogue Act. 17. 11. For in two main points of Religion touching mans Redemption which Paul taught in their Synagogue he differed much from their common received opinion For first hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must needs have suffered namely that by the necessity of the eternal Decree and Covenant he must needs take on him our true humane nature from the Seed of the woman and that in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions he must needs enter the Lists and Combate with Satan for the victory for God had proclaimed an utter enmity between them in Gen. 3. 15. and then he also told the Devil that he should have full liberty and power to peirce this Seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor on the Cross And secondly Hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must also of necessity rise again from death to life on the third day Act. 17. 3. In these two main points Paul differed much from the common received opinion of the Jews for their common received opinion was That their Messiah
shewed in Chap. 10. Sect. 4. and in Chap. 15. Sect. 2. at Eighthly His sixth Proposition is this The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye as God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Reply Take this Proposition in relation to Adams mutable condition wherein he was created unto which the promise and threatning of the first Covenant hath immediate relation and then experience tells us that the threatning in case of Adams disobedience was executed and so in case he had first eaten of the Tree of life God should have been unjust if he had not confirmed him in his present created perfections But Mr. Norton it seems takes this promise and threatning chiefly to intend either eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell as if Adam had been immediately under the threatning of hell-torments and that there is no other way to redeem him from them unlesse Christ stood as his Surety in the same obligation with him to bear them But the Reader may please to see my Reply to his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 10. and in other places I have often Replied to Gen. 2. 17. as you may see by the Table to that Scripture But as touching Gods promises of salvation and his threatning of damnation there is not the same reason of Gods performing promises and threatnings for mans happinesse is contained in the promises and therefore man performing the condition God cannot but will the reward the fame will that wills the making of the promise must necessarily will the giving of the reward promised the condition being performed otherwise it would be vain and of no use for God to make promises to man But aâ— for threatnings which concern mans destruction there is no such tye upon God unlesse his threatnings be delivered with an oath and therefore man will not and cannot complain if they be not executed and if God will rather glorifie his mercy in remitting the punishment upon what account he thought best in the Counsel of his own Will who can say he is unjust mercy herein rejoyceth against judgement See also my note on Psal 94. 15. His seventh Proposition is this The Elect then having sinned the Elect must dye if they dye in their own persons election is frustrate God is unfaithful if they dye not at all God is unjust the commination is untrue If elect men dye in their own person the Gospel is void if man doth not dye the Law is void they dye therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satiâ—fied justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel c. Reply My former Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Sect. 3. is a sufficient confutation of this Proposition But Mr. Norton goes another way in his opening of that text and of that threatning and yet he doth not prove but beg the question and then he makes his inferences The Elect then saith he having sinned must dye he takes not this death for death in sin as the truth is but he takes it principally for eternal death in hell I say in that sense his Proposition is not true for God never willed that the Elect should dye an eternal death in his fifth Proposition he said Gods will was the rule of his relative justice and yet he willed that the Reprobate should consequently dy an eternal death in the same threatning in case they did not imbrace the mercy offered by the promised Seed What God intended by that threatning is now evident to us by experience namely that the Reprobate should dye a spiritual death in sin and after that a corporal and after that an eternal death and that the Elect should dye a spiritual death in sin as well as the Reprobate and that after that they should have a new nature by the promised Seed and after that should dye a corporal death but yet that the Elect should be freed from eternal death upon such terms as were mutually agreed on betwixt the Trinity and that the remains of their spiritual death and also that their corporal death and all other punishments that should be inflicted on them for sin should by Gods infinite mercy and wisdome be turned to their good for the glorifying of his free grace and rich mercy And it was just with God to do according to this his wil and therefore Mr. Nortons conclusion of this Proposition confutes his former part as Gods will is the rule of righteousnesse So Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousnesse The plain English of it must needs be this That in as much as it was the will of God not to execute the threatning of eternal death strictly upon the Elect but to moderate it and to suffer Sathan to inflict something only contained in it upon their Mediator by piercing him in the foot-soals at the same time when the seed of the Woman should break his Head-plot by making his soul a sacrifice for sin as the price of their Redemption for the glory of his grace This being the will of God it must needs be just as well as it was just for him to execute all that was contained in the threatning upon the Reprobates His eighth Proposition Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2. 17. he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule But man having sinned man must dye and satisfie the Law that man may live c. Reply In that Christ did dye for the Elect it did not come to passe from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatning But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdome and free grace in the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity to will it and to accept of his death and sacrifice as the price of their Redemption Heb. 10. 5. 7. Eph. 1. 7 8. And Mr. Norton himself in his answer to his first Query doth acknowledge that vindicative justice hath no necessary connexion with the being of God but is an act of Gods good pleasure Secondly He takes it often for grace which is as often denied that Christ was Adams Surety in the same obligation to the first Covenant Thirdly His conclusion that God could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely that man sinned man must dye in the man Christ Jesus I have shewed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a meer Pralogisme namely a deceitful Sylogisms which seemeth true when it is not CHAP.
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
that manner of Gods imputing our sins to Christ surely Rom. 4. can have no respect of agreement to the Argument in hand Therefore it is only cited to prove that the word impute is used in Scripture as if any one that reads the Scripture were ignorant of it but if any please to see the sense of the word Impute in Rom. 4. let them read Mr. Wotton de Reconc peccatoris part 2. l. 1 c. 15. Rom. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of Life was a figure of Christ And saith he If Christ be be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true And saith he Elect sinners not dying in their own persons must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not be a truth Reply 5. It hath been sufficiently shewed I think that Christ was not Adams Surety in the first Covenant 2 Neither was Christ revealed to Adam as Mediator as yet Had Mr. Norton but consulted with Mr. Shepherd in his 178. and 133. Thesis on the Sabbath he might have been better advised than to say as he doth that Christ was comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant and that the Tree of Life was a typical figure of Christ if he can find no better Arguments to prove that Christ was our Surety in the first obligation with Adam he must be contented In vindiciae legis lect 14. p 133. 135 136 with his liberty to be fond of his conceited notion 3 Mr. Burges also doth dispute against this Tenent of Mr. Nortons and against such as hold a necessity of Christ to Adam in the time of his innocency 4 Mr. Ball doth oppose it in his Book on the Covenant page 9. 11. 13. 5 Mr. Blake on the Covenant saith thus in page 14. The first Covenant was immediate no Mediator intervening All the blessing of the first Covenant saith he flowed from the Trinity as the creation it self did without respect to Christ incarnate there was no Revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency 6 Mr. Burges saith That all those that hold a necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain that In vindiciae legis 135. though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been Incarnated And this was the opinion of Osiander That Christ had been Incarnate though Adam had not sinned And truly Osiander might as well maintain his opinion as Mr. Norton may That Christ was in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety in the first Covenant he saith That Elect sinners must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not bee a truth had he but said or else I am mistaken and have not given the right sense of the Text then hee had spoken humbly and truly and then I had beleeved him Re. 6 Though hitherto I have denyed that Christ was our bounden Christ was our voluntary Surety but not our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam Surety in the same obligation with Adam yet this I do also acknowledge that presently after Adams fall he was declared to be Adams voluntary Surety namely to be his free Redeemer For it pleased God to declare the Decree of the eternal Covenant that was agreed on between the Trinity for mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God by way of Threatning told the Devil in the hearing Gen. 3. 15. of Adam and Eve That the seed of the deceived woman should over-match him at last and should break in peeces his crafty Head-plot and he gave the Devil leave to do his worst to hinder it and for that purpose hee proclamed an utter enmity between them and bid the Devill pierce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Crosse to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience wherein the root of an acceptable sacrifice doth lye that so his death might not be a sacrifice 2 It is also manifest by the said Declaration that Christ had Covenanted from Eternity to take upon him the seed of the Woman and the sinlesse infirmities of our true humane nature and in that nature and with those infirmities to enter the lists with Sathan and to continue obedient through all his afflictions temptations and trials to the death even to the death of the Crosse Phil. 2. 8 9. 3 It is also manifest by the said Declaration That God the Father had Covenanted that in case Christ did continue obedient through all his sufferings temptations and trials that then his obedience through all his temptations and trials should bee accounted as the upshot of his Priestly Consecration which indeed must be compleatly finished before he might make his soul a sacrifice and it is out of controversie that his sufferings were ordained for the perfecting of his Priestly Consecration by Heb. 2. 10. 17. with Heb. 5. 9. and therefore as soon as ever hee Heb 2. 10. had finished all his sufferings that were written of him He said It is finished Joh. 19. 30. and then as a compleat Consecrated Joh. 19 30. Priest he made his Sacrifice saying Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit and so he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost This last act was properly and formally his Death and Sacrifice and it was properly and formally full satisfaction and this powring out his vital soul and rendring his immortal soul into the hands of God was the act of his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. Yea his Death Sacrifice must be done by the joynt concurrence of both his natuesr or else he had not been the Mediator of the New Covenant through death Heb. 9. 15 16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Surety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and
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
Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apâ— Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capro Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech In his seven Candlesticks p. 35â— 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infirmities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sem and Japhet did Noahs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sinâ— And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Oâ—gen Melancthoâ— Bucer Calven Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In moralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his deaâ—h saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee
cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the Second-death which is this namely That the Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like sort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inner-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hanged are se infamed that the carkass of such in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall de file the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21. 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4 Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters from him in his life-time about this controversie whereby I know that his judgement was not throughly established one way or other and I know by some expressions of his that he could not hold that Christ suffered Hell-torments though he did hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and I find that other learned Divines do hold as he did namely That Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and yet they deny that he suffered Hell-torments and the Second-death which is also directly contrary to Mr. Nortons fundamentals for hee holds just satisfaction by a just suffering of the essential Curse of Hell-torments Dr. Preston saith That the curse of God doth consist in four things 1 When God doth separate a man from grace goodness and In his Treitise of Love p. 176. holiness 2 When he is separated from the presence of the Lord from the joy from the influence and from the protection of God 3 When he is cursed in outward things 4 When he shall suffer the eternal curse at the day of judgement But now was Christ thus cursed of God Methinks it should make a godly man
as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without sin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Passion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 148. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sin And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether false that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it outwardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs of Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as hee did I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal 22. 1. We further briefly say That Christ was pleased to yeeld to sense or feeling so far 1 That he might shew himself a perfect true man a thing not easily beleeved as appears by the multitude of Heresies about this matter that sprung up soon after the first plantation of the faith there being no greater evidence to ordinary judgement at least of his perfect humanity than his being subject to the common infirmities of men Secondly To keep us from fainting and despair in the greatest trials combats and afflictions whether spiritual or corporal when God seems to forget us And thirdly As for them that think unpassionateness the Aulus Gellius a known ancient Writer in his 19. book of Noctes Atticae ch 1. 12. greatest evidence of magnanimity I commend the Disputes of two famous Philosophers recorded by Aulus Gellius Thus far speaks the said Annotation Fourthly this is observable That though many Martyrs have through the grace of constancy undergone the pains of death with joy or with little sign of their natural
off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exâ—ctly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing out sins to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of dâ—ath 〈◊〉 ofâ—en called death in Scripture though they 〈…〉 the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue 〈…〉 affirm that Christ death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and so in Joh. 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Joh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of