A Farther Discussion OF THAT Great Point in DIVINITY the Sufferings of Christ, AND The Questions about his Righteousness Active Passive, and the Imputation thereof. BEING A Vindication of a Dialogue, Entitled [The Meritorious Price of our Redemption, Justification, etc.] from ●he exceptions of Mr. Norton and others. By WILLIAM PYNCHON, late of New England. LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold at the Sign of the three Lions in Cornhill, over against the Conduit. MDCLV. To the Honourable OLIVER S T. JOHN, Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas; Peace be multiplied. SIR, I Humbly present this ensuing Controversy to your Honour, because I deem you to be an able Judge, not only in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land; but also in Divine Controversies, and especially in this ensuing Controversy, because it hath so much dependence on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants, in all which you cannot choose but have a judicious inspection, as well as into the Laws of this Land; and the rather, because the Laws of England, have either in their rise, or in their use, some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants. 1 This ensuing Controversy hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature, in which Adam was created. And this Law, though I call it the moral Law of Nature, yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature, which God made with Adam touching man's nature in general, as my Opponent doth. 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam (concerning man's nature) as he was ordained to be the head of man's Nature in general; For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees, unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatening, namely, That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life, than his Promise and Covenant (which was necessarily employed) was, That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever; But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, than his threatening was, That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin. 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combat for the trial of the mastery; for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the full victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit; but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered, and that one of her seed should combat with him, and break his cunning Headplot, by continuing constant in his obedience, through all his ill usage; until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation. And moreover, God told the Devil, that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience, and to hinder him in the course of his obedience, by his ill usage, and that he should have so much power granted him, as to pierce him in the footsoals for a sinful Malefactor on the cross, to try if by any ill usage, either by fraud or force, he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combat. And God also warned the Devil by his proclaimed Declaration, That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman, nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience, than this ●●ed of the woman (by the only weapon of his righteousness) should break his Headplot in pieces, and so should get the victory of the Victor; and rescue the spoil from his power (or at the least the best part of the spoil) namely, the Elect; and so it was prophesied of this blessed seed, in Isa. 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong, namely with the strong enemy Satan. 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant, between the Father and the Son for man's Redemption; for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combat for the Victory, except there had gone beforehand an eternal consent, decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son, for the trial of this Combat, in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satan's headplot: Therefore from this declared combat, in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence, that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him man's true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman, and in that nature, as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear, Sorrow, etc. to enter the Lists, and to combat with Satan for the end aforesaid. And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence, That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son, that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions, nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience, until he had finished all his sufferings, and until at last, in that obedience, he had made his soul a sacrifice, than he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience, both in his combat and also in the formality of his death, by his own Priestly power, as a sweet smelling sacrifice, and thereupon would be reconciled to the Elect, and receive them again into special favour, as Sons, by Adoption. A learned Divine saith thus, The fundamental grounds of Christianity, do enforce us to grant, That in the Divine nature (though most indivisibly one) there is an eminent Ideal pattern, of such a distinction as we call between party and party, a capacity to give, and a capacity to receive; a capacity to demand, and a capacity to satisfy etc. 5 From this eternal Decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son, doth result the New Covenant with the Elect; For it pleased them to agree, That all the Articles of the New Covenant, should be ratified and confirmed to the Elect by the death of Christ, and from that confirmation by his death; It is now styled the New Testament, Heb. 9 15, 16. 6 Presently after the Declaration of the said Enmity and Combat in Gen. 3. 15. namely, in verse 19 It pleased God further to declare the Council of his will to fallen (but now also converted) Adam, That he should return to the dust whence he was taken, Gen. 3. 19 And this is also further to be noted, That God denounced this judicial sentence of a bodily death on him, as a just punishment for his original spiritual death in sin; and this is also further evident by Rom. 5. 12. And secondly, The Apostle doth also further tell us, That when God appointed a bodily death to Adam's sinful nature, that he also did at the very same time appoint a judgement for each departed soul, Heb. 9 27. namely, First, That such as died in the faith of their Redemption by the seed of the woman, should be judged to everlasting life; and so the sentence of their bodily death should at the last be turned into a blessing to them. But secondly, That such as believed 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 Combat and victory, he did exemplify the manner of the victory to Adam by the death of some Lamb, which God commanded Adam to offer in Sacrifice (as I have showed it more at large in my Treatise of the Institution of the Sabbath) and ever after, God did exemplify 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 savour of rest unto God, Gen. 8. 21. because such Sacrifices were ordained to typify Gods full rest, and sweet content in the perfect obedience of Christ; first in his Combat, 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 Serpent's Headplot? 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 loins) He gave this Testimony of Abraham, That he did obey his voice, and keep his charge, his Commandments, his Statutes, and his Laws, Gen. 26. 5. And that he would teach his children and his household 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 loins. 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 Commandments, 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 God's 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 God's end in giving them, for they did rely 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 man's 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 saul's sons to pacify his wrath, though some of them, if not all of them, might be innocent of saul's 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 etc. This ensuing controversy hath relation often to some one or other of these Laws and Covenants, as also to the Law of Suretyship 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 ensuing Controversy to your Honour's 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 be pleased either to vouchsafe me your Animadversions, or else to lay it aside in silence, as you do other men's Tenants 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 persuaded 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 Honour's most humble servant, WILLIAM PYNCHON. TO THE Considerate and Judicious Reader. IN this ensuing Reply, both to Mr. Nortons' Foundation-principles, and also to his several Answers to the Dialogue (called, The Meritorious price of man's Redemption) I do often conclude my several Replies with this entreaty to the Judicious Reader, to judge between us, which of us doth give the rightest sense of the blessed Scriptures in these ensuing Controversies. 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 man's Redemption, (which Paul taught in their Synagogue) he differed much from their common received opinion: For first, he opened and alleged 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 Combat 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 pierce this Seed of the woman in the footsoals, as a sinful Malefactor on the Cross. And secondly, He opened and alleged 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 should come into the world as a stately conquering Monarch, to redeem them from the Tyranny of the Nations of the world and to restore them again into their own land, in a more glorious manner than ever before. And secondly, it was their common opinion, that their Messiah should not die at all, but that he should continue alive for ever in his stately Monarchy. This was their common received opinion of Redemption by the Messiah, as it is evident by Joh. 12, 23, 32, 34. and by Jonathans' Paraphrase, and by their Thalmud, which is cited by Maymony, and translated by Mr. Bro. in Eccles. p. 31. etc. And therefore when Paul opened and alleged from the Scriptures that the Messiah must needs have suffered from Satan and his Instruments for their redemption, it was a great stumbling block of offence to the Jews in general, 1 Cor. 1. 23. and yet notwithstanding some few of their Hebrew Doctors held and wrote otherwise, namely, That the Messiah must suffer much evil from the enmity of Satan; For saith Du Plessis in the Trueness of Religion, page 531. Some of the Rabbins in the Thalmud say, That Christ should be distressed as a woman that labours of a child, according as Jeremy saith, He had great Anguishes to suffer but that he would endure them willingly to deliver man from sin. And (saith he) Rab. Hadarson saith, That Satan should be an enemy to him, and to his Disciples. And saith he, in the book of Ruth, where it is written, Eat thy bread, and temper it with vinegar. This Bread (saith the Commentary) is the bread of the anointed King (or Messiah) who shall be broken for men's sin, and endure great torments, as it is written in Isaiah. And saith he, Rabbi simeon Ben Jochai writeth thus, woe worth the Murthorers of Israel, for they shall kill Christ; God will send his Son clothed in man's flesh to wash them, and they will kill him: And saith he, Whereas it is said, we be healed by his death (or stripes) the ancient Cabalists understand it of Christ, and say that the Angels had taught them, that the cleansing away of si● should be done upon Wood And saith Du Plessis in page 478 Rab. Hechadosh saith, That the Messiah shall by his death save Adam's race, and deliver men's souls from Hell, and therefore he shall be called, Saviour. And secondly, Some few of the Hebrew Doctors did also hold the Resurrection of the Messiah; For saith Du Plessis in page 532, 533. Rab. Hadarson, and Rab. Hachadosh, and Rab. Jonathan the son of Uzziel, and others, do expound these Texts of the Resurrection of Christ, Thou wilt not suffer thy holy One to see corruption; And he shall be raised again within the third day, for it is written, He will quicken us after two days, and in the third day will he raise us up again: And say the Rabbins in Bresith Rabath commenting on Gen. 22. 4. There are many a three days in the holy Scriptures, of which one is the Resurrection of the Messiah, See Ains. in Gen. 22. 4. These two points of Doctrine which was scoffed at by the wise Philosophers of the Gentiles, Act. 17. 18 etc. (which was held but by a very few among the Jews) Paul taught to be the only truth in their Synagogues, and he opened and alleged the Scriptures to prove these points. But because these points of Doctrine were contrary to their now common received opinion, Therefore the Church or Synagogue of Thessalonica (being forestalled by their erroneous judgements) were enraged at it, and like mad men, did tooth and nail persecute Paul for it, but yet he was hid from their rage, and he that held the truth was glad to obscure himself at the present, and to haste away out of their Jurisdiction unto the Jurisdiction of the Synagogue of Berea; But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge thereof, they sent thither also, and stirred up the people against Paul, verse 13. because he held and taught the said Doctrine there. But although at the first it seemed very strange, and ●ew, to them of Berea, as it did to them of Thessalonica, yet they did not persecute Paul for it, because the chief Rulers there were of a more wise, temperate and noble disposition than they of Thessalonica, and therefore they took a wiser course; For they searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so or no: And this is worthy of all due consideration, that they did not content themselves with a superficial search of one day and away, but they made it their daily work to search the Scriptures, neither did they trust only to the Expositions of those Hebrew Doctors that were now commonly received, but they searched into the Scriptures themselves, conferring what Paul had taught, and his proofs, with the Doctrine of Moses, and the Prophets, held forth in the Old Testament, 2 Pet. 1. 19 concerning the promised Messiah where the first Scripture to be examined is in Gen. 3. 15. And first, By this means Paul's two points of Doctrine which seemed new to them, at the first show, was found by them to be the only true Doctrine of the blessed Scriptures; and by that means many of them believed the said points, with many honourable women, which were Greeks, and of men not a few, verse 12. Secondly, By this means Paul's new Doctrine (in show) escaped the odium of Heresy in this place. Thirdly, By this means the Synagogue of Berea escaped from being ranked by the holy Ghost in the number of the other enraged zealous persecutors of the truth. I do earnestly therefore entreat thee, Good Reader, as thou desirest to escape the odium of a Persecutor, and as thou desirest to have the like commendations with those of Berea, search the blessed Scriptures, not only superficially, and by some common received Expositors, but search them deliberately, and search them daily, and then thou shalt be the better able to try which of us do give the true sense of the blessed Scriptures, for as Peter saith of Paul's Epistle to the dispersed Hebrews, some things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrist, as they do also other Scriptures, to their own destruction, 2 Pet. 3 16. and therefore be diligent in thy search, and the rather, because Interpreters give variety of interpretations, and therefore look well to the Context, and look well to the force and use of the original word, by comparing it with the Context, and with other Scriptures, for when Paul went about to convince error, and to confirm the truth, he disputed out of the Scriptures, Act. 17. 2. and so Apollo's disputed out of the Scriptures, Act. 18. 28. And our Saviour said, Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, Mat. 22. ●9. meaning thereby, that they did err, because they did mis-understand the Scriptures; for though they knew the letter of the Scriptures, and had them in great reverence, yet they did err because through a superficial perusal, they took them in a wrong sense. Now the first Scripture wherein the true Platform of our Redemption is first declared, is Gen. 3. 15. In this Scripture God doth first proclaim an utter enmity between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent; and in that Text God told the Devil, that one of the seed of that deceived sinful Woman, should in his true humane nature try Masteries with him, and conquer him, and he told Satan that he should have his full liberty to do what he could, either by fraud or by force, to hinder this seed of the Woman from breaking his Headplot, and so from winning the prize of man's Redemption, and therefore God gave him full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor, and to pierce him in the Footsoals, to try if by any means he could disturb his patience; And in this Combat Christ covenanted that his humane nature should strive lawfully, and not suffer his patience to be disturbed, nor his obedience to be any ways perverted, until he had finished the Combat with Satan, and then he also covenanted in the perfection of that obedience to make his soul a sacrifice for the procuring of God's Reconciliation. And hence it also follows, That God the Father had covenanted to, and with Christ, that he would accept his Combat, and his Sacrifice▪ as a valuable consideration for the procuring of his Reconciliation to all the Elect. And thus it was declared that the seed of the Woman should break the Devil's Headplot, and win the prize, which was the Redemption of all the Elect from Satan's spoil. And first, From this Proclamation of Enmity, and from this first Declaration of the Combat with Satan and of the Victory by the seed of the deceived Woman in Gen. 3. 15. must all the following Scriptures have reference for their true Exposition. And secondly, From this Scripture it is most evident, That all Christ's outward sufferings were by God's appointment to be inflicted on him from the malice of Satan, and his Instruments; and that all his inward sufferings in his vital soul, were to be assumed and exercised from his own true humane affections and passions (which he took from the seed of the Woman) in relation to his ill usage from his Enemy Satan. And thirdly, Neither in this, nor in any following Scripture, i● there any mention that Christ was to be made a sinner by God's judicial imputation, there is no such Court-language in the Scriptures, neither is the term Hell-torments, nor the second death, nor the term Inflicted from God's immediate wrath, applied to Christ, neither in this, nor in any other Scripture, though Mr. Norton hath perverted most dangerously many of the blessed Scriptures so to speak. Fourthly, When this first Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. is rightly understood, and conferred with all the other Scriptures that speak of Christ's sufferings; it will fully declare, That Mr. Nortons' Tenants are most dangerously erroneous; and it will confirm the truth of the Dialogue. Fifthly, This Text of Gen. 3. 15. being rightly understood will be a general Key to open all the other Scriptures that speak of the sufferings of Christ, in their right sense. Sixthly, In this Scripture is set out both the person and office of the Mediator. First, The term he relates to his humane nature from the seed of the Woman. And secondly, The term he relates to his divine nature, or else he could not have taken the seed of the Woman without original sin. Thirdly, His office is declared to be a Combater with Satan in his humane nature, as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions. And it was declared, that Satan his envious Combater should have his full liberty to do his worst to provoke his passions, to some distemper or other, that so he might spoil his obedience, and so hinder him from making his soul a Sacrifice, etc. as it is further declared in this Reply. Good Reader, Let this eminent example of these ingenuous Bereans, make thy spirit calm and deliberate, to search into the blessed Scriptures daily, whether of us have given the right sense, that error may be avoided, and that the truth may be embraced, and confirmed to thy soul, and to the Church of God, when we are dead and gone. Thine in the Lord, W. PYNCHON. A Postscript. AFter I had finished my Reply to Mr. Norton, and after a good part of it was printed, I received a Book lately published by Mr. Anthony Burges, called, The true Doctrine of Justification, the second Part, wherein I found that he hath opposed some things in my Book of the Meretorious Price; but yet with a differing spirit from Mr. Norton, for he professeth that he likes not to be so deep in censuring, as he sees some others are. 1 In page 407. He doth oppose the Dialogue, because it distinguisheth between Christ's legal and Mediatorial obedience; But in Chap. 3. and elsewhere, I have justified the said distinction to be sound and good. 2 In page 426. He doth oppose the Dialogue, because it makes the formality of Christ's death and sacrifice to be supernatural, and in this point his answer is almost in Mr. Nortons' expressions, and therefore my Reply in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and elsewhere, is a sufficient Reply to him as well as it is to Mr. Norton. 3 He holds differing things in the point of Christ's Satisfaction not only from me, but also from Mr. Norton, but I hope my whole Book is a sufficient Reply, and a sufficient vindication of the truth. 4 There is one Scripture in my following Reply, which I have cited to my sense, out of Mr. Burges in Vindiciae legis, namely, Mat. 5. 17, 18. which he doth now expound in a differing sense from what he had done in Vindiciae legis; namely, That Christ came to fulfil the Law for our righteousness by God's imputation. This Exposition he did not give in Vindiciae legis, but yet I perceived that he held it to be a truth in itself; but by his former exposition I could not conceive that he ever intended to hold it from this Text, and Context, or else I had not cited him, and now I would have left him out, had I not been prevented by the Press; for the Exposition that I have now given of that Text, in page 113. I believe is the truth, and it hath the approbation of other eminent orthodox Writers; And as for his two Reasons given in page 357. to prove that these words of Christ must be understood of his Suretyship fulfilling, they prove it not, but according to the Context, they do most fitly agree to Christ's Doctrinal fulfilling, as I have expounded that Text. Thus much I thought fit to speak to the Reader. 5 Whereas it hath pleased him to give the term of many Novelismes to my Book: I reply, That every one knows, that when any one doth labour to vindicate the true sense of the blessed Scriptures from some long accustomed errors, that such Expositors will be accounted to hold Novelismes by them that hold such received errors, when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes, for in Mark. 1. 27. they said, What new doctrine is this? But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is, To make a thorough search into what both sides say, and then to judge between us; such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans: And so resteth, Thine in the truth of the Gospel, W. PYNCHON. A Table of the chief Heads. But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed, therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen, for the better observation of some Points; and because some of them are too much for the Margin; there set only the first sentence, and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page. CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam, was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature, as Mr. Norton holds, but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a mere positive symbolical command, about things indifferent in their own nature, Page 3. * Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly, and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws (after the time of Adam's fall) is called the First Covenant (of Works) and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book; and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant, as Ainsworth noteth in Psal. 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant, in Heb. 9 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God, Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver. 12. and with Heb. 9 19 * Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses, but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites, Paul calls the Law of Works, (for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by God's Covenant to purify their bodies, and so to make them fit persons to appear before God's holy presence in his holy Sanctuary) Rom. 3. 27. and 9 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense, Paul doth also call, The Law of Faith, to the spiritual Jews; because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust only on Christ for Life and Salvation, Gal. 3. 2, 3. Rom. 2. 26, 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws, did by God's Ordinance make them to belong unto two differing Covenants, namely, both to the Covenant of Works, and to the Covenant of Grace, contrary to Mr. norton's Tenent, in p. 183, 184. If adam's eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature, then Eves desire to eat had been a sin, before her act of eating, p. 7 Adam sinned not in soul, until be had first sinned in body, p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die, was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroneously; but it was from a mere voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity, as equal and reciprocal Covenanters, p. 9, 122, 293, 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9 The death of Christ (saith Grotius) was not determined by any Law (that was given to man) but by a special Covenant. Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adam's created nature was such, that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature, p. 10 Adam's ignorance of that positive Law (as of the event) that was at the first given to the Angels (which was to serve man, though in the event many of them refused, and thereby became Devils) made him the more apt to be deceived, by the Devil's temptations, p. 11, 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adam's disobedience to the moral Law, but through his disobedience to a mere positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit, which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13, 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adam's justification, but it was ordained only to be the condition of his created perfections, and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life, if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place, p. 14 No act of Adam's obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience, but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life, because no other act of his obedience, but that alone was constituted by God's voluntary positive Law and Covenant, to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity, p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practice of moral obedience; therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections, p. 21 * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion. 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence. 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially, as the Faculties do from the soul, for than it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject that did support it. 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature conjoined to his soul and body in his creation (as he conjoined an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth, Exod. 2. 2.) which might either continue, or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper, that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth, without the annihilating of his body and soul. 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body, because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation, if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life, for the confirmation of his created perfections. The death threatened in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two circumstances, to our spiritual death in sin only. Therefore first, That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatened. Secondly, therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm, as Mr. Norton doth, that Christ was Adam's legal surety in the first Covenant, to suffer that cursed death in his room, and place, for his Redemption, p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly, * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatened to be the immediate effect of Adam's first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatened till after Adam's fall in Gen. 3. 19 (which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman, etc.) as the proper punishment of Adam's spiritual death in original sin. * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha. 16. at Reply 22. ult. If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death, as the immediate effect of Adam's first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, than the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants; for then the Pelagians might reply, That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adam's first sin, it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin. But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin, in Infants, therefore no other death, but a spiritual death in sin, was at the first threatened in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatened in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adam's first sin, though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christ's undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman, and in that nature, (as it was accompanied with our true infirmities) to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combat (notwithstanding Satan's unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions) and because at last (in the perfection of his said obedience) he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation, by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power, p. 34, 63, 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam, was not made with Adam as a single person, but it was made with him as he was the head of man's nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam, and so to all his natural Posterity was, the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections, p. 27 All the glory of God's Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adam's fall, if God, in his eternal Counsel and Providence, had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret, and not his revealed will, is the inviolable Rule of God's relative Justice, p. 37, 35, and ch. 15. CHAP. III. THe quality or kind of Christ's obedience, ex officio, as Mediator, was not to the moral Law of Nature, as Mr. Norton affirms, but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity, from Eternity. Secondly, Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm, That the quality or kind of Christ's obedience was legal, the same in nature and measure, which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto, yet another while he doth contradict that, and saith it was more also p, 42 Christ's obedience to the moral Law, is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae; But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call, Justitiâ meriti, p. 44 Christ's obedience in his incarnation, and in his death, was not his obedience to the moral Law, as Mr. Norton affirms, but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship only, p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9 p. 291. saith, That Christ's Descension, Conception, Incarnation, and his Miracles, are not imputed to us, because they were no part of fulfilling the Law. In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton, for he denies that Christ's incarnation was any part of Christ's obedience to the moral Law. If the Incarnation of Christ (which was an act of his Godhead) had been an act of obedience to the moral Law, as Mr. Norton affirms, than his Godhead had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father, because the moral Law was given by God as a supreme, which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresy, p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99 and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry, not only with the Humane nature, but with the person of the Mediator, because of sin imputed to him. And in p. 55. he saith, That God charged Christ with sin, as the supreme Lawgiver, and Judge, etc. In these words he maketh the Godhead of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father; which doth also maintain the Atrian Heresy. * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ, as he was true man, was under the obligation of the moral Law, and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, but as he was Mediator, and as he acted as Mediator, ex officio, he was above the moral Law, for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath, even as he was the Son of man. And secondly, he shown himself to be above the Ceremonial Law, in that he said, A greater than the Temple is here, Matth. 12. 6, 8. The Jews legal justifications (under the first Covenant) by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law, was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ, p. 49, 51, 235, and p. 259 CHAP. IV. THe order of men's legal proceed in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alleged for an exemplification of the order of God's proceed in Christ's sufferings (as Mr. Nortons' way is) because it appears by God's Declaration of the Combat in Gen 3, 15. that his sufferings (as he was declared to be the seed of the woman) was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries, with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments; in which Combat, in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience, than Satan had got the victory, but in case he could not by all his ill usage, disturb his patience, nor any way subvert him in his obedience, than the victory, and the rich prize of man's Redemption was to go on Christ's side, p. 55, 82, 9●, 22, & chap. 13, & 14 Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell, p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments, thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance, hath four inconveniencies attending it, p. 56 Sometimes Mr, Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss, in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise, but otherwhiles he saith, it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises; By which wide differing expressions, be leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning, p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123. holds, that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time, and so he comes up to Christ's total separation from God for a time, p 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss, to be no more but the want of the sense of the favour of God for a time, p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his penal Hell in this life, for he is fain to fly to God's extraordinary dispensation to maintain it, p 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatened in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63, 68, 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ virtually, 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 only, 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 Adam's 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 Satan's Headplot 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 a● 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 Christ's 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 Hell, therefore (saith he) the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person. Payment in kind doth justify the Elect actually, as soon as ever they have life in the womb. And this Tenent doth justify the Antinomian Tenent, which holds that the Elect are justified before they have 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 completed, 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 ●4. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell, is all one as to affirm that Christ's sufferings were from God's hatred, p. 79. at the fifth Reason. & p. 80 The true nature of all Christ's greatest sufferings, are described by the word chastisements, in Isa. 53. 5. But the essential torments of Hell are not where called chastisements, therefore Christ's 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 God's 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 Combat, 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 proceed, p. 82, 83, 96, 102, 138, 55. Ch. 13, Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adam's 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 f●uit, than his nature, as it was ●he feuntain of all man's nature in general, should become dead in sin; and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adam's first sin to them all, as being all dead in sin by natural generation, p. 83 Christ could not be Adam's legal Surety to the first Covenant, for than 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 man's nature by natural generation) was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant, p. 86, 150, etc. 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 legal 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 Christ's 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 mere fantasy, 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 joys 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 signify Hell-torments; and then secondly, To signify 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 which was equivalent, p. 113, 107. 72, 291 After Adam's Fall, outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes, and to the Judicial Ordinances, is called the First Covenant (of Works) p. 118, & p. 16 The word Law in Rom. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by God's imputation (as Mr. Norton holds) because is alludes chief to the Ceremonial Law, p. 119, & p. 238, 26 * Add this Note to p. 121. l. 2. The Decalogue was given to fallen man as a Covenant of Grace, and therefore it requires spiritual obedience to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, as well as to the Moral: Ainsworth on Num. 6. 12. saith, One little pollution of the Nazarite at unawares, did nullify many day's purity; For (saith he) the Law requireth a perfect observation, and curseth him that continueth not in doing all things commanded, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 29. 12. J●. 2. 10. But this is to be noted, that if the said Law had not comprehended the Covenant of grace under it, it had not so cursed the non-observers: And saith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19 the life which Moses set before them was by faith in Christ, etc. And see more what he saith in D●ut. 6. 1. and 7. 1●. And see what Rutherfurd (on the Covenant) saith in p. 62. of the better Covenant. The justice of the Law is sometimes satisfied by payment in kind, and sometimes by that which is equivalent, p. 121, 256, 202, 167, 33 Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the Covenant made with Adam (as Mr. Norton holds) but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Persons in Trinity from Eternity; namely, that he should assume the seed of the deceived Woman in personal union, and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities, ● combat with Satan for the victory, by continuing constant in his obedience under all Satan's ill usage, and that at last in that perfect obedience, he should make his vital soul a sacrifice, and the Father covenanted that his death so performed, should procure his reconciliation to all the Elect, p. 122, p. 9, 130, 162, 167, 55, 96, 182, 183, 256, 308 CHAP. IX. THe ground of satisfaction, or of that price that merits God's reconciliation to the Elect, is from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant, p. 130, 139, 55, 82, 83, 96, 102, 122, 257 Perfect obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenant, and Combat, do merit the prize, p. 130 * Add this Note to p. 130. When a prize is merited by an exact and righteous observation of the Laws of the Combat, such a prize so obtained, may well be called the Prize (or the Crown) of Righteousness, which the Righteous Judge will give, and cannot deny to the lawful Victor, 2 Tim. 4. 8. But Christ was such a Righteous Victor in his Combat with Satan, notwithstanding his ill usage to disturb his patience; and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly, That Christ conquered Satan by Righteousness, as I have noted some of their speeches, in Ch. 16. The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and myself, p. 131 * Add this Note to p. 132. A Covenant from the voluntary Cause doth never yield to be overruled by the supreme compulsary Cause (as Mr. Norton holds) as I have often instanced in the Trial of Masteries. Christ is God's Mercy-seat in point of Satisfaction, p. 136 Christ's Sacrifice, is called a Sacrifice of Atonement, because it doth appease God's angry face, and procure his Atonement to all poor humbled and believing sinners, p. 137, 191, 251, 252, 259 * Add this Note to p. 137. at Heb. 9 14. Seeing the Altar was a type of the Godhead of Christ, the fire of the Altar, must by the like reason be also a type of the Godhead of Christ; And therefore when Isaiah cried out, I am undone, because mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts, namely, Christ in his glory, as John expounds it, Joh. 12. 41. then saith he, One of the Zeraphims came flying unto me having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from the Altar, and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged, Isa. 6. 6, 7. or as the Hebrew is, thy sin is expiated by Atonement procured, as Leu. 1. 4. and Rom. 3. 25. this fire was a type of the Godhead of Christ, which sanctified the offering, Mat. 23. 19 Heb. 9 14. 21. 24. for Atonement to his lips. The end why God declared his justice to be satisfied (in the said obedience of Christ) from his Mercy-seat; was first, That he might be just, according to his Covenant made with Christ: And secondly, That he might be just, according to his New Covenant made with the Elect: And thirdly, That he might be the Justifier of believing sinners, p. 139 As the Greek word Dicaios [Just] is put for one that is pious and merciful, so the Hebrew word Chesed [Mercy] is put for one that is pious and just, p. 141 CHAP. X. THe death of Christ could not be a penal death from Gen. 2 17. because God, doth threaten none with a penal death, neither in that Text, nor any other, but sinners themselves, p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. saith, You cannot show me in all the Old or New Testament, any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ; where it is written, If the Man Christ sin, he shall eternally die: I tremble (saith he) at such expressions, and hence I infer, That then Christ could not be Adam's Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant. The true nature of Christ's death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own prieftly office, p. 145, 146, 309, 313, & ch. 17. ult. * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at l. 23. As Christ's assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours, so his death in the formality of it, was not to be like ours, but of a far differing nature. A description of Christ's merit, namely, how he merited our Redemption, p. 146, 176, 130, 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons', Man sins, and the Man Christ dies, is but a Paeralogism, p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the sam●●bliga●ion with Adam, p. 150, 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adam's obedience, or disobedience, to the moral Law, of Nature; yet in that sense it is not a complete rule of God's relative Justice, p. 151 Gen. 2. 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it, p. 152 * Add this marginal, Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might believe in the Trinity, but yet saith Mr. Weams (in his Portraiture p. 91.) he could not believe the incarnation of the Second person, for than he should have understood of his own fall, and then consequently (saith he) he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall. But saith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any natural fear, as the second Adam had, because there was no hurtful object before his eyes, as there was before the eyes of Christ. And saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin. And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid. to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator, but when sin did separate ●io● from God, than he must be brought into favour again by a Mediator, etc. God doth often dispense with his peremptory threaten, p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not engraven in Adam's nature, as his moral Laws were, no more than the time of the last Judgement was engraven in the Humane nature of Christ, Mark. 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands, to the Rule of his secret Decrees, p. 160, 225 CHAP. XI. CHrist bore our sicknesses, and carried our sorrows from us, not▪ by bearing them upon his own body, as a Porter bears a burden, but he is said to bear them, because he bore them from us by the power of his divine command, p. 163 CHAP. XII. MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains, p. 165, 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue, p. 167, 296 The true nature of all Christ's greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa. 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell, inflicted on him from God's vindicative wrath, as Mr. Norton calls them, p. 169, 178, 266, 311, 344 Christ's sufferings may justly be called punishments, such as the godly suffer, and yet not proceed from God's wrath, as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christ's sufferings were inflicted on him from God's immediate wrath, as Mr. Norton holds, most dangerously, p. 172 Christ's Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature, not only in his natural and moral actions, that so it might act according to physical causes, but also in his Office, because be was appointed to combat with Satan in his Humane nature, that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities, p. 174. & 383 The true nature of merit described; namely, how Christ did merit our redemption, p. 176, 130, 146, 308, 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combat, doth cause such a Combater to lose the prize, p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combat may be suffered from the opposite Champion, without any imputation of sin from God's vindicative wrath, p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise, but as he gave Satan leave to wound him, and to do his worst unto him, p. 178, 311 All Christ's greatest punishments, were suffered without any imputation of sin from God, or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God, p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan, or else they had not been meritorious, p. 183 CHAP. XIII. THe word [Sin] is often used in a metaphorical sense, for a sin-sacrifice, because it was offered to procure God's Atonement for sin, p. 190 Christ attoned his Father's wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood, p 191 It is evident by Isa. 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for man's Redemption, p 193 Christ put away sin, as the phrase is, in Heb. 9 26. or condemned sin, as the phrase is, in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin (offerings) by his only true sacrifice for our sins, p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses, was to testify their faith to the throwers of stones, that the evidence they had given in against him was true, p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven, as much by God's imputation, as ever he bore them when he lived here upon earth, p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam, must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death: But all such as hold him to be no other Surety, but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin, must hold him to be an eternal Surety, as they hold him to be an eternal priest, and that he was not discharged of his Suretyship at his death, but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety, for the procuring of God's daily pardon as long as we live in this world, p. 205, 89. CHAP. XIV. MR. Nortons' palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God, to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation, p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other, for the orderly working out of a sinner's Reconciliation and Justification, p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ, namely, not by God's legal imputation, as Mr. Norton holds, p. 212 Man's Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes, p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ, as it is asserted by Mr. Norton, is a doctrine but of late days, p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself, to make himself a guilty sinner, as much as ever his father did, ibid. SECT. 4. God's forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinner's righteousness, p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romant, p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind, so the righteousness of God maketh our Justification, for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified. And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins, and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness: and saith he, this word Hitsadik, is a word taken of the Law, and appertaineth to Judgement, and so to justify, is by judgement. And saith he, forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justify; namely, either indeed, or in account and estimation (for God is the Author of either of them) whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed? Forsooth (saith he) the latter, (namely, that God doth justify by account and estimation) and this, I suppose, (saith he) is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification: And, saith he, in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God, not that Justice whereby himself is just, but that which he communicateth to us, whereby we are truly both counted just, and also are so indeed; For Paul affirmeth that Justification doth consist herein, that our sins are forgiven u●, and that they are no more imputed to us. And saith he, in p. 410 The disputation is not about any Righteousness that cleaveth unto us, but about. Justification, which is the forgiveness of sins; But this Righteousness (saith he) hath no place or seat in our minds, but in God only, by whose will only our sins are forgiven us. These speeches taken from him on the 10 and 11 chap. of the Romans, must needs be his last and most refined expressions of the Formal cause; and he doth also apply the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to the meritorious cause, as I apprehend, by comparing his whole drift together, or else he should cross his said definition of the Righteousness of God. Reconciliation hath two parts, namely, Justification and Adoption; or thus, God's gracious pardon is the whole of Reconciliation, p. 233, in p. Hhat 3. and in p. 253 Sacrifices of Atonement and washings from legal uncleanness, were ordained for their outward ceremonial Justification from their ceremonial sins under the first Covenant; and so it was a lively type of our true justification in God's sight, under the New Covenant, p, 235 * Add this Note to p. 239. at 5. Dicaioma was used by the Seventy for the Jews outward justification in observing their judicial Laws, as well as of their ceremonial Rites; And so also this word Dicaioma is applied to the Heathen Judicials in Rom. 1. 32. And saith Dr. Willet on that verse, this word Dicaioma is not there meant of the moral Law (as some Interpreters do expound it) but of the judicial Laws of the Heathens: and again it is sometimes applied as a proper word to denote either their judicial Laws, or their religious (though idolatrous) Rites, as in 1 Mac. 1. 14, 51, and 2 Mac. 2. 21. The Jews (after their Prophets ceased) abused the use of their typical and ceremonial Justifications by the works of the first Covenant, to claim thereby an eternal justification in God's sight, p. 245 The material cause of Justification disputed and explained, p. 248 Reconciliation or Atonement described, both in the meritorious and formal causes, p. 251, 252, 255, 137, 191 * Add this Note to p. 252. Mr. Ainsworth in Leu. 8. 30. (and in other places also) doth agree with the Dialogue, in making Atonement to be a term Synonimons to justification (in the formal cause of it) and so doth Peter Martyr often, as in Rom. p. 228. Herein (saith he) consisteth our justification to have our sins forgiven us, and to be reconciled to God; And so Calvin speaks often, as in Inst. b. 3. c. 11. sect. 11. They (saith he) be judged righteous, that be reconciled to God; the manner how is declared, for that God justifieth by forgiving; And (saith he) in c. 14. sect. 17. to touch it by the way, this righteousness standeth of reconciliation: And, saith Tindal in his Prologue to Rom. ult. by justifying (saith he) understand no other thing then to be reconciled to God, and to be restored into his favour, and to have thy sins forgiven thee, etc. These and sundry others do accord with the Dialogue, that Reconciliation (which is the same with Atonement) is the formal part of justification. Price, That only ought to be called the full price of man's Redemption that was constituted to be accepted of grace as the full and formal price by God's voluntary positive Covenaxt, p. 256, 221, 267, 77. 202 * Add this Note to p. 259. at the word Caphar (and also to p. 235.) God's Atonement procured, is said to sanctify the sinner, because it did justify him from the guilt of all his sins, and so the word Sanctified must be understood in Act. 26. 18. of being made extrinsecally sanctified, as it is in Heb. 10. 10, 14. and so the word purified in Act. 15 9 must be understood of their being purified from the guilt of their sins, or of their being made righteous by justification, as Peter Martyr on the Rom. p. 392. and others do explain it; for this Text is an answer to the question touching the necessity of Circumcision, and of their other legal purifyings; for the false Apostles esteemed the believing Gentiles to be unclean, unless they did observe their legal purifyings, Act. 10. 14. 15. 24, 28. so likewise the word Cleansed in 1 Joh. 1. 7. and in Tit. 2. 14. is put for their being cleansed from the guilt of their sins by God's Atonement, or for their being justified, and not for their inherent sanctity (though it is also true that none are justified, or made extrinsecally righteous and holy by God's Atonement until they be first inherently sanctified) Peter Martyr in Rom. 1. 6, 7. on these words, Called to be Saints, saith, If we will search out the strength of the signification of the word Sancti, that is, Saints or holy; It cometh (saith he) as Austin teacheth, of this word Sanctio, to Constitute; for that (saith he) is called Holy, which is constant and firm, and appointed to abide; but nothing (saith he) doth more let us to abide for ever, than doth sin, therefore it cometh to pass that holiness consisteth chief in the forgiveness and remission of sins; and this exposition (in the same page) he doth also apply to our being sanctified by justification in 1 Cor. 6. 11. but this kind of justifying holiness by God's Atonement and forgiveness, which makes a sinner to abide for ever righteous, just, and holy in God's sight, Mr. Norton doth damn for heresy; And in p. 228. he calls this Atonement and forgiveness, A pestilent fiction and abomination: O blindness (and blasphemy) extreme in the typical sense, and use of the legal word Sanctified; purged, cleansed, purified, made righteous and justified! was the Jews a holy Nation by inherent righteousness, or rather was it not because of their constant practice to make themselves holy, according to the first Covenant by their typical holiness? CHAP. XV. THe outward manner of Christ's death in being crucified on a Tree, was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. by this phrase, Thou shalt pierce him in the Footsoals, p. 263 Stoning to death, and hanging up of the dead body on a Tree to be gazed on for a further infamy after his stoning to death, was accounted to be the most accursed of all kinds of death, because of the infamy that was contracted by hanging after he was stoned to death, p. 268 * Add this Note to p. 268. When the Jews had killed the ten sons of Haman on the thirteenth day of Adar, than Ester requested the King that their dead bodies might be hanged on a Gallows all the fourteenth day for their greater infamy, reproach and curse, in relation both to Hamans' execrable plot, and also to Gods ancient curse upon the Amalekites, for they came of the stock of the Amalekites that God had eminently cursed, Ester 9 12, 13, 14. Exod. 17. 16. 1 Sam. 15. The time of the burial of the person hanged, might be done after Sunset, provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day, which lasted till midnight, p. 272 The latter Editions of King James 's Translation on Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions, p. 273 The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day, in which he was stoned to death, was, because his curse of infamy by hanging so long on a Tree by exemplary Justice, had appeased God's anger, and so consequently, because it had now removed the curse that else would have fallen on the land, p. 275 The whole land might be defiled by the Judge's negligence, in suffering notorious sinners to go unpunished, p. 277 The whole land was never defiled by any one Ceremonial sin, p. 279 The rule of God's relative Justice, is his secret Will, which is sometimes contrary to his revealed Will, p. 281, 37, 100, 183 The second death is defined by the Hebrew Doctors (from whom that term is borrowed) to be a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God, p. 286 All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world, that is to say, both our spiritual death in original sin, and our bodily death, are altogether called and accounted (both by ancient and later Divines) the first death, in relation to the term second death, because that is only suffered in the world to come, p. 287 Mr. Norton doth sometimes hold satisfaction to be made by Christ's suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments in kind, but at other times he doth hold an alteration to equivalency, p. 291, 72, 107, 113 CHAP. XVI. CHrist did fear death regularly more than other men can do, because his pure nature was not made subject to death by that curse in Gen. 3. 19 as the nature of all other men is, p. 293 Christ did first effect his Combat with Satan in his human nature, and then he did effect his sacrifice (by his Priestly power) in both his natures; and all this according to his Covenant, and therefore he was not made subject to death by God's curse as ours is, p. 293, 297, 308, and p. 9 The excellent temper, and tender constitution of Christ's humane nature, made him more sensible of shame, fear and pain, than other men can be, p. 294 Christ feared his ignominious death, after the rule of fear, and not after the example of this, or that man. p. 295 Christ's doath was not a natural, but a supernatural death, p. 296, 333 * Add this Note to p. 297, at line 1. and also to p. 9 and p. 293. The death of Christ was effected according to the Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son. * Add this Marginal Note to p. 298. Christ did not pray to escape death, but only that his humane nature might be confirmed against his natural fear of death, and so saith Trap, Heb. 5. 7. he was heard in that he feared, that is (saith he) he was delivered from his fear, for no sooner had he prayed, but he met his enemies, and said, Whom seek ye, I am he, p. 298. Christ did voluntarily take our passions to him, as they were a punishment inflicted on mankind for Adam's sin, p. 300 Christ had natural fear actually, which the first Adam had not, because there was no hurtful object before his eyes, as there was before the eyes of Christ, p. 300, 152 If there be any Martyrs, to whom it is pleasant to die, that they have from otherwhere, and not from the nature of death, p. 301 When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason, than no man can express what conflict there is between their nature and death, the destroyer thereof, which conflict was not in Christ, p. 302 Mr. Norton doth in p. 153. most dangerously affirm, That Christ suffered a twofold death, namely, not only a bodily death, but also that God inflicted a spiritual death upon his immortal soul, which he doth also affirm to be the second death, p. 307, 315 The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdom, was the Covenant between the Trinity, p. 308, 9, 122, 130 All the sufferings of Christ were as necessary to his sacrifice, as the consecration of the Priest, was to his sacrifice▪ p. 309 The Sacrifice of Christ, doth properly lie in the formality of his death, which himself effected by his own Priestly power, namely, by the actual power, and joint concurrence of both his natures, p. 309 315, 145 God did all the external sufferings of Christ, by giving licence to Satan and his instruments to do them, and God did all Christ's internal soul-sufferings by appointing Christ to assume our true humane nature and affections, and to use them at his own will and pleasure, more or less, as objects did present, p. 311, 178, & Ch. 17 There is a sympathy between soul and body in sufferings, p. 313 The sufferings of Christ's soul in Matth. 26. 38. and in Isaiah 53. 10. must be understood chief of Christ's vital soul, and not of his immortal soul, p. 314 Satisfaction was made by the true bodily death of Christ; and not by his spiritual death, as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously, p. 315, 307 A true description of the vital soul, and so consequently of the death of Christ's vital soul (but not of his immortal soul) for our Redemption p. 320 A true description of our natural fear of death, p. 321 Christ's soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly (as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously) because they were governed by right reason, p. 322 Add this Note to p. 322. Disorderly and irregular fear and grief, doth sometimes prove lethal and deadly; but it is dangerous to affirm the same of Christ's regular fear and grief. I find it recorded in the French Academy, p. 34. That Here●nus the Sicilian died with fear, for, he being found to be a Copartner in the conspiracy of Caius Gracchus, was so astonished and oppressed with fear in consideration of his judgement ye● to come, that he fell down stark dead at the entry of the prison: And it is also recorded, that Plautinus died of grief, for upon the sight of his dead wife, he took it so to heart, that he cast himself upon her dead body, and was there stifled with sorrow and grief. But it is most dangerous to make Christ's soul-sorrows to be lethal and deadly after this manner; for saith Damasen, His passions never prevented his (regular) will; neither might his death be effected by natural causes, but by his own Priestly power, or else it could not be a Sacrifice. Christ was not fully amazed in his Agony, p. 323 By consequence, Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ, even in the very point of time when he was in the execution of his Priestly office, p. 327, 76 Mr. Norton stretcheth the word (very heavy) in Mark. 14. 33. beyond the Context, p. 328 Luke 22. 44. and Christ's Agony explained, p. 331 Natural death is the punishment of original sin; but Christ's humane nature was not by that Justice subjected to death, p. 333 296 Ainsworth, and others, do make the earnest prayers of Christ in the Garden, to be a cause, in part, of his Agony, p. 334 * Fervency of spirit in prayer, to be delivered from a natural fear and dread of an ignominious death, may force out a bloody sweat, p. 335. A true description of Christ's Agony, p. 336 * A Declaration of the Plot of the blessed Trinity for man's Redemption, p. 341▪ at line 18. All Christ's greatest outward sufferings were by God's appointment to be from his Combater Satan, p. 344, 169, 178, 266, 311, 387 Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his Baptism, when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office, though more especially in the Garden, and on the Cros, p. 346 Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature, but in his humane nature, as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities of sorrow and fear at his appoaching ignominious death, p. 353 Some expressions of the Ancient Divines do clearly evidence, that they could not hold any such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton doth, p. 356 * Some few of the Hebrew Doctors writings (yet extant) do speak of the sufferings of Christ from Satan's enmity, p. 357, at line 16. Adam's first sin, in eating the forbidden fruit, was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death in sin, and then our spiritual death in sin was the meritorious cause of God's justice, first, in denouncing our bodily death, and secondly, in denouncing a judgement to follow, to each departed soul, p. 357 The Pelagians cannot be convinced, That original sin is the cause of the death of Infants, if it be granted, that God threatened a bodily death in Gen 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adam's first sin, p. 358 Christ, as man, was not able to conflict with his Father's wrath, though in that nature he was able to conflict with Satan, and his instruments, p. 359 If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood (as Mr. Norton doth affirm) than it must needs be a miraculous sweat, and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it, p. 361 CHAP. XVII. THe Hebrew word Azab hath not two contrary significations, as Mr. Norton doth affirm, to amuse his Reader about the manner of Gods forsaking Christ upon the Cross, p. 371 All Christ's greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastifement, p. 375, 169 Our larger Annotation on Psal. 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons' way of satisfaction to be but bare humane Ratiocination, which (saith the Annotation) is but mere folly and madness, p. 377 God forsook Christ on the Cross, because he did not then protect him against the Powers of darkness, as he had done very often in former times, p. 379 One main reason why God forsook the Humane nature of Christ upon the cross, was, that so his Humane nature might be the more tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities, in all the afflictions that were written of him, p. 383, 174 The Humane nature was no true part of the divine person, but an appendix only, p. 387 * Add this Note to the marginal Note in p. 387. Zanchy, in his sixth and seventh Aphorisms to the confession of his faith, p. 280. saith, That the Humane nature was no true part of the person of Christ; and saith he in his twelfth Aphorism, at 4. Though the nature taken (to speak properly) is not a part of his person, yet at 5. he saith, It is acknowledged to be as it were a part of the person of Christ, because without it we cannot define what Christ is, and because of them both, there is but one and the same hypostasy. Though the Humane nature of Christ ever had its dependence and subsistence in the divine, after the union; yet such was the singleness and the unmixedness of the divine nature in this union, that it could leave the Humane nature to act of itself, according to its own natural principles, p 388 * Add this Note to p. 389. at line 6. In two things, saith Pareus, this similitude of Athanasius doth not agree; and before him Zanchy said as much, for in his sixth Aphorism he saith, It is freely confessed by Justinus, and by other Fathers, that this similitude doth not agree in all things to this great mystery. * The Geneva Annotation on Psal. 22. 1. doth say, That Christ was in a horrible conflict between Faith and Desperation; and so by necessary consequence, it makes Christ to be a true inherent sinner; and this blasphemous Note hath been printed and dispersed in many thousand copies, and yet where is the Boa●erges to be found that hath vindicated Christ from this dangerous Tenent? p. 393. God did not so forsake the soul of Christ on the cross, as to deprive him of the sweet sense of the good of the Promises, as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously, p. 394 Christ was often his own voluntary afflicter with Soul-sorrows, p. 404, 178 Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice; But yet it doth not thence follow, that he was his own Executioner, or Self▪ murderer, as Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly thence infer, p. 405 No full satisfaction could be made by any thing that Christ suffered, before his bodily death was completed, because therein only lay the formality of his sacrifice, without which no full satisfaction could be made, p. 415, 309, 79. 145, 315 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth make Christ to die formally under the sense of the wrath of God for full satisfaction; but at other times he doth cross that, and makes satisfaction to be fully completed before he suffered his natural death; So uncertain he is in his foundation-Principles touching Christ's satisfaction, p. 416 There was a transcendent difference between the manner of Peter's laying down his life for Christ, and the manner of Christ's laying down his life, as a sacrifice, for the redemption of the Elect, p. 417 * Add this Note to p. 417. Mr. Weams on the Judicial Laws, p. 78. doth observe, that though Peter said to Christ in Joh. 13. 37. Lord, I will lay down my life for thy sake, yet Christ (that knew his natural unwillingness better than himself) told him afterwards, that another shall carry thee whither thou wouldst not; so that in the conclusion, when Peter came indeed to die for Christ, he was partly willing, and partly unwilling, joh. 21. 18. which kind of unwillingness was not in Christ at his death, because he had by his prayers in the Garden obtained a confirmation against his natural fear of death, when he came to die on the cross. Therefore Mr. Norton doth deal very unadvisedly to compare the manner of Peter's laying down his life, with the manner of Christ's laying down his life for the Elect. * Add this Note also to p. 417. The power which Christ said he had to lay down his life, must not be understood of a permissive power, to let Satan take it away formally, nor yet of his absolute power as he was God, but of his derivative power in relation to his Office of Mediatorship, as I noted it in pag. 46. and in p. 420. from Mr. Ball; for his Father's commandment or commission gave him a special power of lawful authority to lay down his life, and therefore in vers. 18. he saith, this commandment, or this authority have I (as Mediator) received of my Father. Christ's Priestly consecration by his sufferings, and his Sacrifice, by the formality of his death, must not be confounded, but distinguished, when the parts of his Priestly Office are explained, p. 427 No other act of a Priest doth make a Sacrifice formally, but such an act as God hath appointed for the taking away of the life of the sacrifice formally, p. 429, 408, 416, 309, 315, 345 The word Sanctify, or make Holy, in the Law, is frequently ascribed to God's Atonement and Forgiveness procured by Sacrifice; And therefore all those sinners that are made holy by that means, are Justified, and Righteous persons in God's sight, p. 431 These three legal Phrases, Pardon of Sin, God's Atonement, and a Sinners Righteousness, are the same thing, quite contrary to Mr. Nortons' long Discourse, in p. 209, 210, 211, 212, etc. See p. 432 What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to Reconcile us to himself, but by the death of Christ's flesh? and not by the spiritual death of his immortal Soul, as Mr. Norton holds? p. 434 The death of Christ, as is was a sacrifice of Reconciliation, was by God's voluntary Covenant, the full price of man's Redemption, p. 436 A Table of some Scriptures that are Expounded or Illustrated. Genesis. Ch. Verse. Page. 2 7 4▪ 2 9 4, 154. 2 17 23, 59, 63, 112, 130, 144, 149, 152. 3 15 82, 89, 91, 96, 124, 135, 142, 167, 171, 176▪ 178, 263▪ 269, 297, 308, 310, 324, 332, 341, 344, 348, 400, 418. 3 19 30, 147, 334, 401, 419. 20 3 158 32 20 137, 191, 251, 252, 257. Exodus. Ch. Verse. Page. 22 31 235, 432. 23 5 371 24 7, 8 119 29 36, 37 190, 432 30 10 251 30 12 135, 255, 436 30 16 256, 436 32 10 335 32 27, 29 92 32 32 181 Leviticus. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 4 133 4 20 233 6 26 213 6 30 233 7 15 272 10 17 194 11 44 432 15 31 50, 148, 234 16 30 433 17 4 87 17 11 315, 318, 320 18 5 17 20 15 216. To this Text see our larger Annotation on the word cursed, in Gen. 3. 14. Numbers. Ch. Verse. Page. 5 8 251 14 19 233 19 11, 15 280, 282 25 4 268, 275 35 25 319 Deuteronomy. Ch. Verse. Page. 6 24, 25 239 9 14 335 21 8 233, 257 21 23 262 27 26 119, 151 29 12 119 33 19 233, 252 Joshua. Ch. Verse. Page. 7 12 276 8 29 272 2 Samuel. Ch. Verse. Page. 21 1 280 21 9 276 22 5 327 1 Kings. Ch. Verse. Page. 21 3 113, 131, 256 2 Kings. Ch. Verse. Page. 20 1 157 2 Chron. Ch. Verse. Page. 30 19, 20 158 Job. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 21 179, 348 2 7 ibid. 19 21 ibid. 36 32 189 42 8 258 Psalms. Ch. Verse. Page. 16 10 109 18 5 321, 327 22 1 59, 370 25 11 333 25 18 168 31 5 436 32 1 168, 258, 260 32 5 85 40 6 213 40 8 44, 187 40 16 270 49 7, 8, 9 94, 135 51 14 233 51 19 233, 252 65 4 137 69 7, 9 269 69 20 343 69 27 349 78 38 160 94 15 138 118 19 49 Proverbs. Ch. Verse. Page. 7 9 272 28 13 197 Isay. Ch. Verse. Page. 53 4 162 5 166, 178, 181, 266, 349, 375 6 167, 186, 193 7 181, 184 8 351 9 351 10 96, 124, 178, 211, 222, 223, 314, 348. 12 188, 220, 337, 344, 378, 399. Jeremy. Ch. Verse. Page. 30 21 187 33 8 50 Ezekiel. Ch. Verse. Page. 18 4, 20 25, 94, 149, 217, 27 12, 13, 14-373 Daniel. Ch. Verse. Page. 6 14 224 6 14 340 6 21, 23 429 8 14 49, 235, 260 9 7, 16 233 9 24, 27 48, 139, 196, 223, 233, & 233, 241, 250, 260 9 26 225, 352 Jonah. Ch. Verse. Page. 3 4 158 Zachery. Ch. Verse. Page. 13 1 190 13 7 347 Matthew. Ch. Verse. Page. 4 1 346 5 17, 18 113 16 21 142 19 28 29 20 22, 33 305 26 28 260 31 346 38 173, 269, 270, 298 314, 321, 327. 39 9, 46, 305 46 335, 339 47 347 53, 54 184, 298, 384 27 39 270 45 179 46 59, 370 Mark. Ch. Verse. Page. 10 39 305, 307 14 33 223, 338. 14 24, 35 290▪ 15 27, 28 220, 352 Luke. Ch. Verse. Page. 9 28 107 9 31 121 10 40 374 12 50 183 22 28 170 44 100, 177, 331, 334, 336, 338. 53 184, 418 23 34 45 23 46 436, 414 24 25, 26, 44-143 24 46 95 John. Ch. Verse. Page. 10 11 181, 344 10 15 181, 314 10 17, 18 46, 298, 314, 369, 409, 418, 426 11 33 337, 417 12 27 337, 404 14 30, 31 184, 346, 352 16 32 61 18 4, 6 184 18 11 179, 298 19 11 179, 351 ib. 28 75, 328 ib. 30 75, 90 ib. 33 415 Acts. Ch. Verse. Page. 2 23 179, 312, 351 ib. 27 109 3 17, 18 142 4 28 179 13 27, 28 143 15 9 259, in the Manusc. Note Romans. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 32 239 2 13 18 ib. 26 241, 260 3 21 223, 237 ib. 25 136, 233, 258 ib. 26 134, 140, 180, 228 ib. 27 15, 244 ib. 31 125 4 88 ib. 25 312 5 9, 10 229 ib. 12 31 ib. 14 31 153 ib. 16 240, and so it is translated justified in Syracides 14, 20. ib. 18 135, 211, 228, 233 240 ib. 19 16, 153, 211, 233 343 8 3 49, 226 237, and see the Dialogu p. 116 ib. 4 119, 237, 238, 260 ib. 23 29 ib. 32 95, 179, 312, 350 9 31 244 10 3 138, 232, 237 ib. 4 242 15 30 335 1 Corinth. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 24, 25 424 6 11 237, 259, 260 ib. 20 256 9 24 178, 340 15 29 306 ib. 30, 53 ●9 2 Corinth. Ch. Verse. Page. 5 21 207 13 4 423 3 13 262 ib. 16 342 4 4, 5 47 5 11 270 Philippians. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 30 340 2 6 132, 139 ib. 8, 9 124, 344 ib. 9, 10, 11 177 3 9 120, 123, 233 Twice ib. 10, 11 370 4 3 340 Colossians. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 21, 22 434 ib. 29 340 2 14, 15 124, 146, 344, 234, 419 1 Tim. Ch. Verse. Page. 2 6 256 4 10 340 2 Tim. Ch. Verse. Page. 2 5 178 4 7, 8 178, 340 Titut. Ch. Verse. Page. 2 14 p. 50, 259 Philemon. Ch. Verse. Page. v. 18 87, 219, and see Peter Martyrs Com. pl. part. p. 4. 263. Hebrews. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 3 p. 252 2 10, 17 90, 92, 93, 344, 386, 427, 430 ib. 14 90, 294, 357, 419 ib. 17, 18 165, 170, 194 4 16 136, 140 5 6 169 ib. 7 299, 303, 334, 336 7 22 115, 118 ib. 21 426 ib. 28 90 8 3 430 ib. 12 139, 233, 258 9 110 49, 118, 235, 260 ib. 13 48, 51, 120, 214 235, 260, 432 ib. 14 90, 137, 214 43● ib. 15, 16 90, 137, 181 420 428 ib. 18, 23 120 ib. 22 124 ib. 24 196 ib. 26 49 195 ib. 27, 28 147, 358 10 4 433 ib. 5 294 ib. 7 43 ib. 10 46, 122, 124, 237 259 ib. 32 340 12 2 146, 178, 269, 339 13 13 270 1 Peter Ch. Verse. Page. 1 19, 20 132, 256 2 24 103, 181 3 18 184 1 John. Ch. Verse. Page. 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133, 180 Rev. Ch. Verse. Page. 5 9, 12 428 Christ's Satisfaction Discussed and Explained. CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christ's Satisfaction. Mr. Nortons' first Proposition is this. THe Lord Jesus Christ as God-man, Mediator, according to the will of his Father, and his own voluntary consent, obeyed the Law, doing the Command in a way of Works, and suffering the Essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine Justice; thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant; which active and passive obedience of his, together with his original Righteousness, as a Surety, God of his rich grace actually imputeth to believing Sinners for their Righteousness. Reply. I deny several things in this Proposition to be true: But because all the particulars are but barely affirmed here, though some proofs are hereafter alleged; therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated, with their proofs annexed. In the mean time the Reader may please to take notice: That I deny first, That Christ made any such Covenant by his voluntary consent with his Father, as to be bound in the same obligation with Adam to fulfil the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction. Secondly, That the first Covenant made with Adam, was not touching his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law; but it was touching his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature. CHAP. II. And first the true Nature of the first Covenant is Discussed. SECTION 1. Where also Mr. Nortons' second Proposition is examined, which is this. GOD in the First Covenant (the substance whereof, i●, Do this and then sealt live, Leu. 18. 5. But in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shal● die, Gen. 2. 17.) proceeded with man in a way of Justice. Mr. Norton proves by these two Scriptures that the nature of the first Covenant made with Adam, was in relation to his obedience and disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature; and he doth make great account of both these Scriptures, because he citys them very often to that sense. And in Page 186. He affirms that God propounded the Law of Works to man before his fall, with the promise of justification and life, in case of Legal obedience. And in Page 189. He saith, That the sum of this Law is the two Tables (and saith he) it is called the Law of Works, in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life, Leu. 18. 5. And this Law, he calls Moral, positive, the habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature, together with its obligation, were both from the first instant of the Creation; this binds perpetually, and it is immutable. And in Page 190. he saith, The Transgression then of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the said Law of Works, which was given to Adam, and afterwards to Moses. Reply 1. In opposition to Mr. Nortons' description of the nature of the first Covenant, I shall labour to prove that the true nature of the first Covenant, was in relation to Adam's obedience or disobedience to a positive Law, about things indifferent in their own nature, and not about the Moral Law of nature. My first Reason is this: If God made a Covenant with Adam, concerning his obedience The first Covenant was not made in relation to Adam's obedience or disobedience to the Moral law of nature, but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a positive Command about things indifferent in their own nature. or disobedience about his eating of the two Trees; the one called the Tree of Life, and the other the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, (which was indifferent to be eaten, or not eaten in their own nature) than the first Covenant was not made concerning his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature; unless Mr. Norton will affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam in his Innocency, of a differing nature, the one of positive, and the other of moral Commands. But it is absurd to affirm, that God made two Covenants of works with Adam of such a differing nature. Therefore one of the two must needs be null; But the Covenant concerning the two Trees cannot be null; because that Covenant is expressed in the Text; therefore hence it follows that the moral Law of nature was not propounded to Adam as the first Covenant of works, with the promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience, as Mr. Norton affirmeth upon Scriptures misinterpreted; and on this sandy foundation he builds the greatest part of his Answer to the Dialogue. The first Covenant was made with Adam concerning man's nature in general (as he was the head of all mankind) and that Covenant was this, Eat of the Tree of life in the first place (for I have ordained it as thou mayest perceive by the name given to it) for the confirmation of thy created natural perfections to thee, and to all thy seed for ever, as these places conferred together do prove, Gen. 1. 29. Gen. 2. 9 Gen 3. 2. Gen. 3. 22. and as I have also expounded in my Book of the Institution of the In his descent into Hell, p. 163. & 172. Sabbath: And saith Christopher Carlisle, where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual Number, it signifieth Immortality, as (Gnets Cajim) the Tree of Lives, of which (saith he) if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality; and so when [Neshamah] hath Caijm joined to it, it signifies the soul is immortal, in Gen. 2. 7. Secondly, Though this promise is not altogether so plainly expressed in the Text as the Threatening is; yet seeing the Threatening (In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die) is expressed plainly as the reward of his disobedient eating: it follows by consequent, saith Mr. Burges, that some good thing is promised to obedience: And what else (say I) can that good See Vindiciae legis lect. 13. p. 123. & Vindiciae Faedcris, ●. 9 And Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 8. thing be, but the confirmation of his present mutable created perfections by his obedient eating of the Tree of life? for in case he had but first eaten of that Tree, that once eating should by God's Covenant have confirmed his nature in his present created perfections to him, and to all his posterity for ever. Thirdly, saith Mr. Ball, the Lord having respect to the immutability of Adam's Nature, was pleased to try his obedience by symbolical Precepts: But when the creature should grow to absolute perfection and unchangeableness, than such symbolical Precepts, and outward Seals should cease as needless. It is generally granted that the Command concerning the two Trees, was but for the present trial of Adam's obedience: And hence it follows that as soon as the trial was made, (which was to be made in the very day of Adam's creation, for God had determined to finish all his Works, both of the visible and invisible Creation, both of the earthly, and of the spiritual Creation, in six days, as I have showed at large in the Institution of the Sabbath) than these symbolical signs of the two Trees must cease as needless. God was pleased to promise the confirmation of his present natural perfections for one act of obedience; so that had Adam but once eaten of the Tree of life (as doubtless in wisdom he would have done before any other fruit, if the Devil had not suddenly circumvented him by his Serpentine subtlety) he had been confirmed in his created perfections, and all his posterity with him for ever; and then these symbolical Precepts should have ceased as needless, as we see by experience they did cease upon adam's once eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and so in like manner they should have ceased, in case he had but once eaten of the Tree of life; for when a Covenant is once fulfilled, it ceaseth to be a Covenant any more; for the performer hath the perpetual fruition of the benefit of it; and so in like sort, the will of God was, that the once offering of the body of Christ should merit the eternal salvation of all the Elect, Heb. 10. 10. Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9 28. Fifthly, This was the first Covenant, saith Mr. Clendon, wherein there is no mention of obedience to the moral Law. In his Sermon of Justification justified. p. 22. Secondly, (saith he) Adam was under the obedience of the moral Law, before God made any Covenant with him, Gen. 1. 27. God created man in his own Image; and this Image of God did stand in perfect Knowledge, Righteousness, and Holiness, so that at the first instant of Adam's creation, he was under the obedience of the Moral Law (even before God brought him into Paradise, for he was created out of Paradise, but the Covenant was not made with him till after he came into Paradise) and being created perfect in knowledge, he did perfectly know the eternal will of God, and accordingly he did perfectly obey it: And it may well be called the Law of nature, but not a Covenant of nature, because no promise of any reward was made to Adam for keeping the moral Law; therefore perfect obedience to the moral Law, was not the condition of the first Covenant; but it was a necessary condition of man's perfection, and a necessary consequent of God's perfection that man was so created. Sixthly, It is not necessary (saith Mr. Burges) to make it a In vindiciae leges p. 118. question, whether the breach of the moral Law would have undone Adam, and his posterity, as well as the transgression of the positive Law; for all must necessarily think, that the moral Law planted in his heart, And obedience thereunto, was the greatest part of Adam's happiness and holiness. Mark that, he saith, And obedience thereunto: In which speech he doth fully concur with Mr. Clendon, that Adam could not sin a moral sin. Seventhly, Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith, The Law given to the In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven, p. 50, 51. first Adam, non comedendi, was over and above the moral Law, not to eat of the forbidden fruit: And a little after, he calls it, That special Law of not eating the forbidden fruit, which was unto Adam, praeceptum symbolicum (as Divines call it) given over and above, and besides all the ten Commandments, for a trial of his obedience to all the rest; And such (saith he) was this Law given to Christ the second Adam. Eighthly, saith Mr. Blake, The wicked Jews at their worst In vindiciae Faederis▪ p ●0. could observe the command of non licet meats: And the Command to Adam (saith he) was of a like nature. But saith Mr. Norton in Page 189. As God at Mount Sinai, after the Decalogue, gave the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws, which were accessary Commands, part of, and reducible thereunto, as conclusions to their principles; So God at the Creation, having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart, Gen. 1. 27. After that, gave him this accessary Command concerning the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2. 17. part of, and reducible thereto, as a conclusion to its principle. And in Page 90. He concludes that the transgression of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a transgression of the same Law of works which was given afterwards by Moses. Reply 2. This comparative Argument will not hold, because there is a great difference between the moral Law of nature as it was written in Adam's heart; and the Decalogue as it was after given by Moses. 1 The moral Law written in Adam's heart is therefore called the moral Law of nature, because it was made con-natural to him in his first creation. But the Decalogue was given by Moses to fallen Adam, and it was given as a Covenant of grace in Christ. 2 The Decalogue as it was given by Moses to fallen Adam, was given for the most part by way or prohibition, to restrain man's corrupt nature: But because Adam was created after God's Image in moral perfections, it was not suitable to be so given to him. 3 There is not the like Reason why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the moral Law of nature, as there is why indifferent things prohibited by a positive Command should be reduced to the Decalogue; for the Decalogue was given as a Covenant of grace; and therefore all the types of grace in Christ do appertain to it by virtue God's positive Command which forbids many things that are indifferent in their own nature. 4 The moral Law of nature did not enjoin Adam to observe every seventh day, as a day of rest, as the Decalogue doth. 5 The fourth Command, and some others in the Decalogue See Trap on Mat▪ 5 p. 132. & Dr. Ames in Medul. c. 15. Sect. 12. & vindiciae legis. p. 62. 148. 213. are partly of a moral Constitution, and partly of a positive: As for example, to observe some time for God's special worship is moral, but the determination of every seventh day is positive. 6 The moral Law of nature did not require faith in Christ, nor repentance for sin as the Decalogue doth; and therefore all the positive Commands concerning typical purifyings, etc. must needs belong to it. Seeing then there is so great a difference; This comparative Argument at large will not hold to prove the prohibition given to Adam in Gen. 2. 17. was a part of, and reducible to the moral Law of nature in Adam, as the Ceremonial Law is to the Decalogue. Reason 2. If adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, had been a sin If adam's eating had been a sin against the moral Law than Eves desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating. against the moral Law, than the very natural desire of Eve to eat of it, had been a moral sin, before her act of eating; for the Text saith, It was a desire to her eyes, and she saw it was good for food, and a Tree to be desired, etc. Gen. 3. 6. And it is a received maxim of all that expound the moral Law, that it binds the inward man, as well as the outward; and so saith our Saviour, He that looks upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery in his heart, Math. 5. 28. And in that respect, Mr. Norton doth affirm it in Page 63. That we (in Adam) first sinned in soul properly. And hence it follows by Mr. Nortons' Divinity, that there Adam sinned not in soul until he had first sinned in body. was a first sin in Eve before her act of eating; And than her act of eating had not been her first sin, as usually it is esteemed and called; and indeed as the very letter of the Text doth plainly affirm, In the day thou eatest thereof (and not in the day thou desirest to eat) shalt thou die the death; Therefore it is a palpable untruth to affirm, that we first sinned in soul properly in Adam. When the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food, and that it was a desire to her eyes; yet if then she had but stayed her desire here, and had gone no further, she had not sinned; For such positive Laws as this, do not bind the inward man, but the outward man only. 1 Take this Instance; If a Jew had desired to eat Swine's flesh to satisfy his hunger, because it was good food by creation, and yet had forborn the act of eating, he had not sinned against the prohibition of the positive Ceremonial Law; and therefore that Law did not bind any such person to purify himself by washing, in regard of his said inward desire to eat. 2 Take another Instance: It was a Ceremonial sin, by the Ceremonial law to touch a dead Corpse, because it defiled the outward man only, and not because it defiled the conscience; for it was a necessary duty that was laid upon the conscience, at least upon some of his near relations, not only to desire, but really to touch his dead Corpse, and to carry it to its burial. 3 Saith Mr. Rutherford, The Law of God because it is holy In Christ's dying, at Asser. 5. p. 141. and spiritual, doth require a conformity in all the inclinations and motion's of our soul, and the Law of nature; but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations, and every positive command of God, such as was the Lords Command that Christ should die for sinners, is not required in the Law of God. If Adam (saith he) had submitted his natural hunger and desire to eat of the forbidden fruit, and had not eaten, there had been no sinful jarring between his will and Gods positive Law, Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. And at Asser. 4. page 140. he saith thus; A conditional and submissive desire, though not agreeable to a positive Law and Command of God, is no sin; nor doth the Law (positive) require a conformity in our inclinations and first motions of desire. God's Command to Abraham (saith he) to kill his only Son, and to offer him a sacrifice to God, was a mere positive Command; for it is not a command of the Law of Nature (nor any other then positive) for the Father to kill the Son; yet if Abrahim do still retain a natural inclination of love (commanded also in the Law of nature) to save his Son's life, and doth desire that he may still live, this desire and inclination, though it be contradictory to a positive Command of God, is no sin, because the fifth Commandment, grounded on the Law of nature, did command it. And Christ's desire that the Cup might pass from him was Mat. 26. 39 The Command of God for Christ to die, was not a moral, but a positive Command. no sin, Mat. 26. 39 Luke 22. 42. because the Command that he should lay down his life was not a moral Command (as Mr. Norton holds) but a positive command, and that command (saith he) did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life, seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will. And saith he in page 217. The Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son are diversely propounded; but at thirdly, saith he, the Father bargains by way of work, or hire, or wages, to give a seed to his Son, Es. 53. 10. When he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his Seed, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. But Mr. Norton in opposition to the Dialogue, affirmeth, That Gods Command to Christ to lay down his life, was a moral Command, and that Christ's obedience thereto was an obedience to the moral Law, in page 57 etc. And though he doth often cite Rutherford for him, yet in this he is point blank against him. These considerations taken from these Ceremonial Laws, and sundry such like which might be produced from sundry other positive Laws, do prove that Adam sinned not in soul, but in body only, at first, by his actual eating of the forbidden fruit, by which sinful bodily act, his body was originally defiled with a contagious sinful nature, and then his soul was defiled with that contagion, by reason of its personal union with his body; just in the same manner as the infused souls of children are ever since. We say not (saith Peter Martyr) that the soul is corrupted of the body by a natural action; but for as much as See P. Mar. in Rom. 5. 18. and in his Com. Pl. part. 2 cap. 1. Sect. 26. and Zauchy Tract. Theol. c 4. de pecca●o originali. the body is corrupt, it resisteth the soul, and the soul not being confirmed with those gifts which it had in the beginning, obeyeth the inclination thereof, and is governed by it; and therefore hence it follows, First, That Adam's sin was not a sin against the moral Law, for there is no sin against the moral Law properly, till the soul consent. Secondly, Hence it follows, That the guilt of Adam's bodily sin was not imputed to his soul, till his soul had first received the contagion of his sin from his body, by virtue of personal union, and by virtue of God's justice as a punishment on him for the breach of God's first Covenant. Thirdly, Hence it follows, That Christ's soul could not be made guilty of Adam's first bodily sin by God's imputation, except he had been under the same Covenant of nature as all the rest of Adam's natural posterity are; and so under the same obligation to his punishment of original death by original sin. Reason 3. The frame and constitution of Adam's nature was such, that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature (in case See Blake on the Covenant. p. 19 The perfection of Adam's moral principles was such that he could not will to sin against his natural moral principles. See Perkins on the Creed. p. 159, etc. he had been tempted to a moral sin) as I noted a little before from Mr. Clendon and Mr. Burges: It is too gross an imagination to think that Adam being created after God's Image in a perfect moral rectitude, could will to sin against his moral natural principles; doubtless it was more con-natural to Adam to forbear sinning against the moral law of nature, than it was to forbear eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. Mr. Perkins moveth this question, How could Adam, created after God's Image, will sin? For a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. He answers thus; Freedom of will to that which is absolutely evil was not in Adam in his innocency: But (saith he, at fourthly) Freedom of will to things that are good in their own nature, and which may become evil through prohibition: This was in Adam before his Fall. And Mr. Clendon saith thus; The moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant, because Adam could not In his Sermon of Justification justified. p. 23. break the moral Law; he could not sin directly against any branch of the moral Law, because he was created perfect, both in his understanding, will, and affections, as all confess; his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God, and did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law, and his will and affections did perfectly follow the dictates of his understanding, and therefore he could not sin directly against the moral Law. And presently after he saith, The liberty of Adam's will did consist in this, That he could not will any moral evil; and herein he was created after the Image of God (who is the most free Agent) and therefore doth always necessarily will that, and only that which is good; But about things indifferent in their own nature, he had a liberty to will or nill, to choose or refuse, etc. And thus Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Clendon do concur with this reason; and so doth Mr. Burges in Vindiciae Legis page 118. . Reason 4. Adam's ignorance of that positive Law which God had Adam's ignorance of that positive Law (and of the event) that was given to the Angels made him the more apt to be deceived by the temptation. given to the Angels, and of the Event thereof, made him the more apt to be surprised by Satan's temptations concerning that positive Law which God had put upon him. For though Adam was perfect in the knowledge of all moral duties, yet he was ignorant of that positive Law that was first given to the Celestial Spirits, which was, that they as well as the visible creatures should attend upon Adam and Eve into Paradise, as I have showed in the Institution of the Sabbath; neither was Adam acquainted with the disobedience and fall of many of these Celestial Spirits, for their refusing to attend upon Adam and Eve; neither did Adam know that they had obtained leave of God to tempt him about things indifferent in their own nature; in these things Adam might well be ignorant, for their actings, being Spirits are not subject to be discerned by bodily senses. But the Devil in the Serpent knew all these things experimentally, and he knew also that Adam was ignorant of them; and therefore when the Serpent talked with the Woman about the most excellent benefit of the forbidden fruit, he was too cunning for her: Doubtless she thought that the Devil in the Serpent was no other but a good creature of God, for she knew that God had commanded all the visible creatures to attend upon her and Adam, as their Lord, and to serve them for their best good, and she could not imagine that any creature could be so wicked as to persuade her to do any thing that might tend to her hurt. In these and such like things her understanding was not enlightened (as it was in the knowledge of all moral duties) and therefore in these things she being as yet ignorant, might easily be swayed in her will and affections about things indifferent in their own nature, and therefore she seeing that the Tree was good for meat, and a desire to her eyes, and that it was to be desired to make one more wise in the Theory of good and evil, more than she had by Creation, she was persuaded to take and eat, and then with her hand she reached out some of it to her husband, and he suspecting no hurt from her that was given to be a meet helper to him, did take and eat, and then the eyes of them both were opened, not only in the Theory, but also in the experience of evil upon themselves; for now they saw and felt their present spiritual death in sin. This I bring to show that Adam did not sin against the moral Law of nature, but against a positive Law only, about things in their own nature indifferent; and therefore that the moral Law was no part of the first Covenant with Adam. If Adam had been tempted to a moral sin, his moral perfections were such, that he would soon have found out the Fall of Angels; for Adam's soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christ's soul was; and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty days together, yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations, he began to tempt him to moral sins, namely to worship him, etc. But then Jesus said unto him, Hence Satan, Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said, if he had been tempted to a moral sin. At the first (saith Peter Martyr) Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know, that the Devil was fallen, or else his will had been governed by his mind. Conclusions from the Premises. 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant, namely, that it did not consist in Adam's obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature; But in his obedience or disobedience to a mere positive Law, concerning his act of eating of the two Trees. 2 Hence it follows, That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin, he had by that act discovered himself to Adam (as he did to Christ) to be naught, & then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation, for than Adam's will would have been governed by his enlightened mind, and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature, as they were to Christ, and then he would have said to Satan as Christ did, Hence Satan, and then Satan could not have prevailed afterwards; for Adam's wisdom was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place, as the best food for his confirmation. 3 Hence it follows, That Adam did not first sin in soul, as Mr. Norton holds, and as indeed he had done, in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature; but his sin was only against that positive Law, that did only forbid his bodily act of eating, as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works. 4 Hence it follows, That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law, but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant, about things indifferent in their own nature. p. 188. is sound and good; namely, in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law, but for the breach of such a positive Law, as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law. 5 Hence it follows, That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life (as his wisdom would have caused him to do in the very first place, if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him, he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him; they should have had a propagated Righteousness, because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a public person, saith Mr. Burges, and also generally all Protestant Divines. 6 Hence it follows, That the moral Law in Adam's nature, was not ordained for Adam's justification (as Mr. Norton holds) The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adam's justification; but as a condition only of his created perfections, therefore it would have been the rule of his life, if he had but first eaten of the tree of life. but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection; for God could not make man perfect, but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law. But Mr. Norton saith in Page 231. That four things were requisite to Adam's justification by the works of the Law. And at fourthly he saith, That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience. Reply. From this Assertion it follows, That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity, and yet have failed at last, and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law, and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years' space, and all the rest after that time after the image of Satan. And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this, namely, That upon supposition of Adam's continuance in obedience, all the acts of his obedience, even to the finishing of perfect Righteousness, had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works, unto their attaining of justification by the Law. And saith he in Page 244, Adam's justification consisted not in one act of obedience. This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant; For it is acknowledged by Bucanus (whom I No act of Adam's obedience had been imputed to his posterity, for their obedience but his first act in eating of the tree of life, in case be had stood. have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3.) that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first, and that first sin (in eating the forbidden fruit) was not so much personal, as natural, namely it was common to the nature of man in general by virtue of God's Covenant: And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adam's obedience: That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience, should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by virtue of God's Covenant. See Vindicae Legis also in p. 119, 120. Secondly, Hence also it follows, That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life, that act also had justified him no further, but from Satan's accusation; And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm, as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life. But any man that hath but half an eye, may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses, but especially to the Ceremonial Law: And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary. I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections; but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall, except only of justification from the Devil's accusation and temptation (as I said before) for no doubt the Devil had said to God (as he said afterwards against Job) that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam, than Adam would disobey as they had done; But in case Adam had not yielded to Satan's temptation, but had taken warning by the prohibition, and by the threatening, and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, but had first eaten of the Tree of life, than he had been justified by that act against Satan's accusation and temptation; but he needed no justification in respect of his obedience to the moral Law of nature, whiles he stood in his created perfections, and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adam's justification, much less was it ordained to that end for fallen man; For saith Mr. Burges, God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant In Vindiciae legis, lect. 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him. See also Ball on the Covenant, p. 102. 130, 135, 16●, 178. but that of Grace. The safest way, is, to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law, neither in Adam's Innocency, nor since his Fall, to be a rule of justification by works. See Wotton de Recon. peccatoris part. 2. l. 1. c. 6, 7. Seventhly, Hence it follows, That sinners cannot be justified formally by God's imputation of Christ's obedience to the first Covenant of works, unless it can be proved that Christ did purposely make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden, there to eat actually of the Tree of life, as our Surety in our room and stead, to the end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us, for our formal justification. Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons' Doctrine of Gods imputing Christ's obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification. Eighthly, Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19 namely, as by one man's disobedience to a mere positive Law, the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners; So by the obedience of one to a mere positive Law in his death and sacrifice, shall the Many be made righteous. Ninthly, Hence i● follows, That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition, that Christ did covenant with his Father, both to fulfil the Law of works, and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse, that thereby the might exactly fulfil the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to God's justice for man's justification. Tenthly, Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law, (which is not granted, nor cannot be proved) yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus, That God did never require such a double fulfilling (as Mr. Norton lays down in his first Proposition) namely that Jesu● Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works, and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse, that so he might thereby exactly fulfil the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousness. It was never heard (saith Pareus) that the Law did oblige In his Epist. to Whitgenstenius at the end of Vrsinus Catechism p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time; but every Law obligeth (dis-junctively, and not copulatively) either to obedience, or to punishment; for so long as obedience is performed, the Law obligeth not to punishment; that is, it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment; But when obedience is violated, than the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment. This is generally true (saith he) both of divine and humane Laws. Therefore their Suppositions (saith he) which they do here assume, are untrue, and repugnant to God's justice; namely, that man after his Fall (and so the Mediator for man) was obliged both to fulfil the Law, and to suffer punishment. When obedience indeed is violated, the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment: This being performed, he is no more a sinner, and he is tied to obedience, not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment, but to another new obedience, or if again he violate this, to a new punishment. I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adam's obedience, or disobedience, to the moral Law; and so hold as Mr. Norton doth, That no satisfaction can be made to God's justice, except Christ be our surety to fulfil the first Covenant, by doing the Command in a way of works, and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction. But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lie in Adam's obedience, or disobedience, to the positive Command only; and shown from the Orthodox, that Christ's obedience in his Incarnation and Death, was not to the moral law, but to a positive Law for satisfaction to God's justice for our Redemption and Justification. SECTION 2. The Examination of Leu. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove, That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adam's obedience, or disobedience, to the moral Law of Nature, and that is by Leu. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply. First, I will examine Leu. 18. 5. (This do, and thou shalt live) whether it have his sense or no; for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose, because he doth often cite it, as in page 14, 140. 149, 189, 191, 225. etc. But I must needs say, I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text, to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature; seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace. These words (saith Mr. Ball) Do this and live, must not be interpreted Leu. 18. 5. See B●ll on the Covenant p. 136. as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect obedience, and for works done in such exactness, as is required; But they must be expounded Evangelically, describing the subject capable of life eternal, not the cause why life and salvation is conferred; And by doing is to be understood sincere, uniform, and unpartial obedience, not exact fulfilling the Law in every tittle. Do this and live (saith he) what is it more than this, If ye will obey my voice, and do my Commandments, ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure, Exod. 19 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal. 119. 1, 2. Psal. 106. 3. Psal. 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places (saith he) are to be understood of sincere and upright walking, to show who are justified, and to whom the promises of life do appertain; but not why they are justified. In like manner (saith he) that speech of the Apostle, The Rom. 2. 13. Doers of the Law are justified, Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Evangelically; not of them that fulfil the Law to be justified by their works, but of them that sound obey, who are justified of grace by faith: And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification, not only perfect works done by the strength of nature (of which sort there be none at all) but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel, such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called: These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification. 2 It is evident, that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace: And this Mr. Ball shows abundantly in page 102. 130, 135, 166, 178. etc. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus, Paul describeth the righteousness In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5, 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5, 6. from these words, Do this and live, which are said to have reference to Leu. 18. 5. But saith he, We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousness which is by faith: and (saith he) Beza doth acknowledge, that that which Moses speaks of the Law, Paul doth apply it to the Gospel. 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly show that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace, in page 229. etc. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins, because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law, Do this and live. 5 Mr. Baxter saith, Do this and live, is a Gospel condition. In his Saints Rest, p 9 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish Bishops that held justification by works, doth give the clear sense of Leu. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joined with Tinda's works, p. 218. 240. Rule 293, 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former; his words I omit, because they are long. 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture, citys this Rule from Luther; Precepts (saith Luther) presuppose faith, as where it is written, Keep the Commandments, that is by Christ, or by faith in Christ; also, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. that is in Christ, or by faith in Christ; also, Do this, and thou shalt live, that is, do it in Christ: and so of the rest of this kind. 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Leu. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food, so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of God's Commandments. 9 The true sense of Leu. 18. 5. compared with the Context, is this, Do this and live, is a general command, and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses, namely, to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, as well as to the Moral Law, as the Context doth clearly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three terms, Judgements, Ordinances, and Statutes, wherein they were commanded to walk, namely, in sanctified obedience, and then the promise is added, Which if a man d●, he shall live in them, Leu. 18. 4, 5, 26, 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 19 Deut. 21. 9 and to all their Laws in general, Deut. 5. 1, 10, 31, 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11, 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws, as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks, Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew. Do the Sabbath day, Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers. 13, 14. Do the Passeover, Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Booths, Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice, Exod. 10. 25. 1 King. 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin, That is, Do thy Sin-offerings, Leu. 9 7, 22. Leu. 16. 9 Exod. 29. 36, 39, 41, 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this, but to an outward conformity, their services were rejected; whence it is evident, that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith, and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain, If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only, nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented, but in the qualification of his heart, in the manner of his offering, Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering, the Apostle concludes, that his works were evil, because his good sacrifices were done in an evil manner for lack of faith. So that God's Command, Do this and live, implies, do it in faith and live, as Christ saith in Matth. 7. 21. he that doth the will of my Father, namely that doth it in faith, and then the Promise is annexed, This is the will of my Father, that he which believeth in the Son, should have life everlasting, Joh. 6. 40. and s●●d the Jews to him in vers. 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent, vers. 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30, 31. and therefore believing is commanded in the Law as the chief work, 1 Joh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes. 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience, Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works, but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Leu. 18. 5. is to be undetstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace, and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant. But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adam's obedience to the moral Law was by God's free Covenant ordained to merit life by. 2 Reply. If Mr. Norton had proved as well, as affirmed, that God Adam's obedience to the moral Law of nature, was con-natural tohim, and therefore it was not ordained to merit life by. had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by, than he had hit the nail upon the head; but his proofs hitherto have failed, and I believe it is passed his skill to give any clear proof of it. True it is (saith Mr. Ball page 133.) that the promises run upon this condition, If ye obey my Voice, and do my Commandments. But (saith he) Conditions are of two sorts, Antecedent, or Consequent. Antecedent, when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given, as in all civil Contracts of justice, where one thing is given for another. (The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam; God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections, for one act of obedience, namely, in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life: As I have showed more at large in Sect. 1.) 2 There is a Consequent condition, when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject, or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised; And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandments was a condition to the promise, not the cause why the thing promised was vouchsafed, but a qualification in the subject capable, or a consequent of such great mercy conferred. Secondly, I do further reply thus; That the doing in Leu. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works (as Mr. Norton affirms.) 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace. 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties; for the moral Law of nature is not a complete rule for duties to us, without some supply from the Gospel; for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ, as the Decalogue doth; the moral Law of nature doth not command us to believe, to repent, and to yield subjection to Christ, as the Decalogue doth (as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis) neither doth the Law of nature forbidden sins against the Gospel, as unbeleef, impenitency, and contempt of grace, as the Decalogue doth; neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctify every seventh day, as the Decalogue doth: All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue, more than was in the moral Law of nature. Therefore the Doing in Leu. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant, neither in respect of justification, nor in respect of sanctified walking. Conclusion touching Leu. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows, that Leu. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit; as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to God's free grace in the first Covenant, and therefore the moral Law of nature, and the Decalogue (which comprehends the Covenant of grace) is not the same for substance. 2 Hence it follows, that the doing of the moral Law by Adam, and the doing of it by Christ, was con-natural to them, and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of God's Relative Justice for man's justification and life, as Mr. Norton doth propound it. SECT. 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton, to prove that the most principal death there threatened (for the breach of the first Covenant of works) was eternal death in hell, and saith he, in his first Proposition, Christ (as the Surety of the Elect) suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice, thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant. In his second Proposition, he saith, That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice. In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice. In his sixth Proposition, he calls it, The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man. In his eighth Proposition, he saith, That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid, in respect of his power now limited, to proceed by this Rule, namely, first, According to the recompense contained in the promise in case of obedience; or secondly, according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience. We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant; First, by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly, by overturning his first proof in Leu. 18 5. Now it remains to expound. Now the true nature of that death that is threatened in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained. And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of God's Justice, for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for man's Redemption. 1 Reply. Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, Thou shalt die the death. The true nature of this death, I make to be a spiritual death in sin only. This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time; In the day, or at what time soever. The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only, and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatened; and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant, to bear that death that is there threatened. 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatened, to the kind of life that was promised. First, No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatened to be formally executed, but a spiritual death in sin only. And therefore first, no other death was properly threatened in this Text. And therefore secondly, it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatened in this Text, because said he, There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii, subject to death. But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him, The words of the Text, in Dying, thou shalt die, seem to imply an actual death, which they should then suffer, and not a potential only. Secondly, I answer further, that if a bodily death were there only meant, or chief meant, as others say, then where shall we find any other Text besides this, wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatened? surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin, but this Text only, neither was spiritual death executed at any other time, but at this time only; It was but once threatened, nor but once executed, and that was done in the day or time of Adam's eating; therefore that death only is the death that is threatened in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adam's sin; whether it was a sin against the moral Law, or against a positive Law only, 1 I have already showed, That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature; and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law. 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person, for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatened. 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature; and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatened for the breach of any outward positive Law, but at first a spiritual death in sin, and ever after a bodily death only; but yet for want of faith in Christ, eternal death will follow after a bodily death. 4 It was a sin against the good of man's nature in general, because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of man's nature, as he was the head of man's nature in general, as I have showed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only, than he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law; but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin, to make their nature in themselves, and in their posterity, more sinful than it was by Adam's sin; for by Adam's sin, all are alike sinners (in the same degree) of original sin. Therefore God's Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law, unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law, which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning; and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this, a bodily death only is often expressly threatened. Bucanus propounds this Question; If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place. original Righteousness, should it have been derived to all his posterity? It should (saith he) First, because it was the righteousness of man's nature, and not the righteousness of a private person. Secondly, (saith he) because the contrary to it, namely original sin, was derived by Adam's means to all his posterity (Christ only excepted.) Thirdly, (saith he) because every like begets his like in nature and kind. And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place, The first The first Covenant was made in relation to man's nature in general, and not with Adam as a single person. Willet in Rom. 5. Q 19 sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural, that is, saith he, common to all man's nature which originally and naturally was in his loins: but saith he, The other sins of Adam were truly personal, of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, but the soul that sinneth shall die. And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus, As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children; so neither were all Adam's sins propagated to posterity, but only the first; between which, and his other sins, there was this difference, That by the first, the goodness of man's nature was lost, And by the other, the goodness of Adam's grace was taken away. 1 Hence it follows, that seeing Adam's sin was not so much against his person, as it was against man's nature in general (for it was against the Covenant that God made with him, touching man's nature in general, he being the head of man's nature) therefore the death threatened was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on man's nature in general at the very instant of Adam's sinning, and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only; and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb, none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation; so than the punishment of death which God first threatened and inflicted on Adam's nature for his sinful act against the first Covenant, by eating of the forbidden fruit, was a spiritual death in sin, which is now become nature to us, because the Covenant being broken, the punishment must fall on our nature, as soon as we have any being in nature; but bodily death was not then formally executed, neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb, as death in sin is, but after some distance of time; neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is, for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement; and therefore no other death was threatened, and formally executed on man's nature in general, at the instant of Adam's eating, but a spiritual death in sin only. Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement; Such as are alive (saith he) at the day of Judgement shall not formally die by the separation of their soul from their body; So than it follows by good consequence, that neither a bodily death, nor eternal death in hell, was threatened to be formally executed on man's nature in general, at the instant of Adam's sinning, but a spiritual death in sin only. And Dr. Willet saith, That the death threatened seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer, and not a potential only; not that Adam's soul (saith Mr. Perkins) was now utterly abolished, but because it was as though it were not, and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousness and fellowship with God; and indeed (saith he) This is the Death In the right way of dying well, p. 490. of all deaths, when the creature hath subsisting and being, and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God. The second Circumstance that proves this death threatened to be meant only of death in sin, is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised, to the death here threatened. Now the life promised to Adam by God's Covenant, was the confirmation, and the continuance of his created natural perfections, The life promised to Adam a●d so to man's nature in general, was a perpetual life in this world, in his created perfections. to him, and to all his posterity for ever, in case he did first eat of the Tree of life; once eating should have merited the blessing, as once eating did merit the curse; and this was signifed by the name that was given to that Tree, it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree, and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant: And saith Christopher Carlisle, where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual number, it signifieth immortality, as genetes Cajim, the Tree of Lives; of which saith he, if Adam had tasted, it would have brought immortality; and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the See Ball on the Covenant, p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Grotius, & Camero, & Bro. in Eccl. & the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains. in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin, Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise, that age should not consume and end his life, Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 continuance, and the confirmation of his natural perfections in this world; this I believe is the truth: and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto, that the death threatened must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only, and not of any other death, till another death was threatened after this; for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world, and that in the highest degree of all misery, according to the justice of Gods threatening, without any bodily death, for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary; and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned, after the Resurrection, without any bodily death, notwithstanding their spiritual death: for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin; so at the general Resurrection eternal death in hell, is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death. And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adam's sinful eating, execute on him this spiritual death of sin; yet it pleased God also in a short time after, to Relax the rigour and outrage of this spiritual death to, all mankind in general in this life. All the glory of God's creation had been confounded at the time of Adam's fall, if Christ had not been foreordained to be ready at hand to take on him the Government of all. And secondly, to alter it much more to the Elect; for God had ordained that his Son Jesus Christ should be the Heir of all things, as soon as ever Adam fell, and that he should at the instant of Adam's fall, take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation, now in rebellion and confusion by Adam's fall, and that he should uphold all things by the word of his power, Heb. 1. 3. and in a special manner should rule over man's corruption, and Satan's malice; or else if Christ had not been provided in God's eternal Counsel and Providence, in a readiness to undertake the Government of all this in this point of time, no man can imagine what a hell would have been here on earth through man's spiritual death in sin, and Satan's malice, if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government. And secondly, It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin, to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam, and all his elect posterity from this desperate Headplot of Satan, and from this miserable death of sin, thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure; or else if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence, there had been no room left for the manifestation of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed; for till the time of God's gracious manifestation, Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of God's vindicative threatening; but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him therefrom; for God said thus by way of threatening to the devil, The Seed of that Woman (whom thou hast deceived) shall break thy Headplot by his death and sacrifice, and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it; And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin, thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to pierce him in the footsoals as a wicked Malefactor, Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience, that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his patience, nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice, and by this means shall thy cunning Headplot be broken in pieces, and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken. Now to bring this work of Redemption to pass, a double change must be wrought in fallen man, by the Mediation of this Promised Seed. 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration. 2 A change of our present state, from being the children of wrath by nature, to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption. 1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration. 1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good (which is done but in part whiles we live in this world) through the Word and Spirit; For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration, as I said, is done but in part, for as long as we live in this world, this body of sin doth still in part remain, and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here. 2 The full degree of our Regeneration, is not till the day of the general Resurrection, and then all those that have been in part regenerated here, shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here, to fit them for that full Regeneration; for without such a change of our corrupt nature by death, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit incorruption, 1▪ Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect (saith Christopher Carlisle) the Resurrection is called by Christ, A Regeneration, a new Birth, a Renovation, a In his Treatise of Christ's descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead, a Restitution from above, Matth. 19 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate, and in part sanctified here, must suffer a bodily death, that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body, as well as in soul, and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, 1 Cor. 15▪ 53. Ph. 3. 21. Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in ordaining a bodily death; for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after, namely, in vers. 19 which is but four verses after the promise, tell believing Adam (as he was the head of man's corrupt nature in general) Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return; And thus from the order of time when this threatening was denounced, It follows, 1 That a bodily death was not denounced, until after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break the Devil's Headplot (by purchasing a new Nature, and a new Paradise for Adam, and as many else of his posterity as did believe in the Promised Seed) but this threatening of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and die in the unbeleef of the Promised Seed; for when God did first appoint a bodily death, he did then also appoint a day of Judgement, as Heb. 9 27. doth expound the threatening in Gen. 3. 19 2 This is also worthy of all due consideration; That this bodily death was not threatened to be formally executed in the day of Adam's sinful eating, as death in sin was. 3 Neither was a bodily death threatened to be formally executed on any certain day afterwards. 4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death, as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death, after this time; but upon the committing of such and such sins, he did still from time to time threaten, a bodily death: But after the first threatening of a spiritual death in sin, God did never threaten that death any more; he did but once threaten that death, and but once execute it. 5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to believing Adam he adjudged him and all his believing posterity no further than their bodies to the earth, whence Christ should one day raise them, and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption; but he adjudged his unbelieving seed, not only to a bodily, but also to an eternal death in hell. 6 From this appoinment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19 and not from that death in Gen. 2. 17. must all the Scriptures have reference that speak of a bodily death. 7 Hence it is evident, that bodily death was not at first threatened in Gen. 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adam's first sin, but as an immediate effect and punishment of original sin: and this Rom. 5. 12. 14. is further evident by Rom. 5. 12. As by one man (namely by one man's disobedience, as it is explained in verse 19) sin entered into the world (namely original sin) and death by sin (namely a bodily death by original sin.) And the matter is yet more plain by vers. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trangression; that is to say, Death reigned over Infants from Adam to Moses for their original sin, before ever they had sinned actually after the similitude of Adam's Transgression; and saith Paul in vers. 21. Sin (namely original sin) reigned unto death: Hence it follows, that the wages of Adam's first sin was death in sin, and the wages of his original sin was a bodily death only to believers, and eternal death to all unbelievers, Rom. 6. 23. And it is evident, that this is an ancient orthodox Tenet, that bodily death did first enter into the world by original sin. Fulgentius de incar. & gratia Christi, ch. 12. saith, Except the death of the soul had gone before by sin, the death of the body had never followed after as a punishment; and saith he in Chap. 13. Our flesh is born with the punishment of death and the pollution of sin; and of young children he saith, By what justice is an infant subjected to the wages of sin; if there be no uncleanness of sin in him? And saith Prosper, de promise, & predict. part. 1. c. 5. The punishment of sin which Adam the root of mankind received by God's sentence (saying, Earth thou art, and to earth thou shalt return, Gen. 3. 19) and transmitted to his posterity as to his branches, the Apostle saith entered into the world by one man's sin, and so ranged over all men. And Origen as I find him cited by Dr. Willet saith, You may call the corporal death a shadow of the other (namely a shadow See Dr. Willet in. Rom. 5. Quest. 21. of our spiritual death in sin) that wheresoever that invadeth, the other doth also necessarily follow. And Theoph●lus Reason doth conclude as much: By the sin of Adam (saith he) sin and death invaded the world; namely by Adam's first sin, original sin invaded the world, and then bodily death invaded the world by means of original sin. And saith Peter Martyr, It is much to be marvelled at, how P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. the Pelagians can deny original sin in Infants, seeing they see they daily die. And saith Maxentius in libello fidei c. 3. We believe that not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but also that the sting of death, which is sin, entered into the world, and the Apostle testifieth that sin and death went over all men. And saith Bullenger in Decad. 3. Ser. 3. By disobedience sin entered into the world, and by sin death, diseases, and all the mischiefs in the world. Many other Orthodox Writers do confirm this for a clear truth, That God inflicted bodily death on man's nature in general as a punishment of original sin; now if it were inflicted on man as a punishment of original sin, than it was not threatened as the immediate effect of Adam's first sin in Gen. ●. 17. And the Hebrew Doctors, as well as Christian Writers, understand the death threatened in Gen. 2. 17. of death in sin, and they make bodily death to be the immediate effect of it. 1 By the death threatened in Gen. 2. 17. Rabbi Moses Ben Mamony understandeth a spiritual death, that is to say, the See Dupless is in the Trueness of Religion ●h. 27. death of the soul wounded with sin, and so forsaken of her life, which is God. And other Hebrew Doctors say that bodily death is the effect of original sin, Unto this world (say the Hebrew Rabbins cited by Ains. in Gen. 3. 19) there cleaveth the secret filthiness of the Serpent which came upon Eve; and because of that filthiness death is come upon Adam and his seed. And saith Ainsworth in Gen. 3. 15. The mystery of original sin, and thereby death over all, and of deliverance by Christ, Rab. Menachem on Leu. 25. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words; So long as the spirit of uncleanness is not taken away out of the world, the souls that come down into this world must needs die, for to root out the power of uncleanness out of the world, and to consume the same; and all this is because of the Decree which was decreed for the uncleanness and filthiness which the Serpent brought upon Eve. From these Testimonies it is evident that the ancient Hebrew Doctors held bodily death to be the immediate effect of original sin; and they held original sin to be a spiritual death, and to be the immediate effect of Adam's first sin. chrysostom also saith, We die a double death, therefore we Chrys. against Drunkards and of the Resurrection. must look for a double resurrection; Christ died but one kind of death, therefore he risen but one kind of resurrection; Adam (saith he) died body and soul, First, he died to sin; And secondly, to nature: In what day soever ye eat of the Tree (said God) ye shall die the death; that very day did not Adam die in which he did eat, but he than died to sin, and long after to nature: The first is the death of the soul; the other the death of the body; for the death of the soul is sin, or everlasting punishment. To us men there is a double death, and therefore we must have a double resurrection: To Christ there was but one kind of death, for he sinned not, and that one kind of death was for us; he owed no kind of death, for he was not subject to sin, and so not to death. In these words we see that chrysostom held that Adam first died to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly, to nature, long after his death in sin. This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true substance in the Dialogue in page 10. etc. and from that Exposition, I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead, for our redemption; and if this Exposition which I have now enlarged be sound, and according to the Context, as I believe it is, than the inference that I made is right and good. But I confess that upon the receipt of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition, I was much staggered; for, as I remember he demanded this question. By whose means was it that Adam died this spiritual death; was it inflicted on him by God, or rather did he not pull it upon himself? This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he, is no other than if it were said, whensoever thou dost wickedly, thou shalt become wicked; for what is it else to be spiritually dead, but to be devoid of goodness? or whensoever thou killest thyself, thou shalt be dead; besides (saith he) it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holiness and Righteousness, and so to make it unholy, unrighteous, wicked, evil. These considerations, I confess, did amuse me at the present, my conscience, I bless God, being tender of truth, and not being able to satisfy myself at the present to the contrary, I durst not oppose it, and therefore I did at that present manifest myself to be convinced. But since then, I bless God, I find sufficient light to satisfy me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right: Though I confess I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death; and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query, Whether Adam cast away God's Image, or whether God took it away from him, in his Aphorisms, page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold, that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, he died spiritually by being forsaken of God, in regard of holiness, as well as in regard of comfort; and so he was deprived of the chief part of God's Image; but so was not Christ, saith he. And I was the more enlightened and supported in my Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. by P. Martyrs Answer to Pigghius. See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 18. Original sin is the essential punishment of Adam's first sin though in the issue the Elect according to God's eternal counsel are redeemed from it by Christ. Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natural effect of Adam's sin. P. Martyr doth answer thus; The ground and reason thereof, is rather taken from the justice of God, whereby the grace of the Spirit and heavenly gift wherewith man was endowed before his fall, were removed from him when he had sinned; and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God; Although the blame (saith he) be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man, lest a man should straightway say that God is the cause of sin; for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned, straightway vic●s and corruptions followed of their own accord. Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam. This of Peter Martyr, and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me; then also I considered that Adam's perfections were created to be but mutable, until he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life, and therefore they were but lent him for a trial; for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, he should die the death, and so lose his created perfections; and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit, God in justice took them away. But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect, for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace, because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature; but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Image● for he created him to be but of a m●rtable condition, and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place; so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit, it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first. In like sort at the first, God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education, 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9 But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him, because he gave it not otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command; And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose, he should still have enjoyed it; but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag, than God took away this spirit of Government from him, and then Saul grew wicked, 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adam's nature, for his disobedience against his positive command, as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command? Conclusions. 1 Hence it follows, that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good, as I conceive it is, Then Mr. Nortons' second Proposition, and all his other Propositions, that affirm that the death threatened in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of God's Relative Justice, do fall to the ground. 2 Hence it follows, that the bodily death of the Elect, and Eternal death i● hell, is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death. both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate, are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of man's nature in sin, and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatened in Gen. 2. 17. or thus, Adam's disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of man's nature in sin; & the spiritual death of man's nature in sin was (afterwards) the meritorious cause of bodily death, though God was pleased to sanctify that punishment to all that do believe in the Promised Seed, and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better, but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that believe not in the Promised Seed; for when God ordained death, he ordained judgement to succeed it, Heb. 9 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; But the wrath of God abideth on him, Joh. 3 36. 3 Hence it follows, that the inviolable rule of God's relative Justice for man's Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of God's secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall; and that secret will (but now revealed) was that the formality of Christ's death in separating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice, and the formality of all satisfaction, as it is explained in Heb. 9 15, 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Nortons' Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth Proposition is this. Merit is either absolute, so God cannot be a debtor to the creature, no not to Christ himself, or by way of free Covenant; so God in case hath made himself a debtor to man. Justice then consisting in rendering to every one their due, and Gods will being the rule of Justice, it followeth, that, and only that to be the due desert, merit, or demerit of man, which God hath willed concerning him. Reply. He saith Gods will being the rule of justice; this's true, if it be taken for his secret will; for it is his secret, and not his revealed will that is the inviolable rule of his relative justice; God may, and often doth free a sinner from his revealed, threatened punishments, upon such account as himself pleased to decree in the counsel of his own will, and yet he is just in so doing, though his revealed will be contrary; and the reason is plain, because he hath ordained his secret will to be the absolute rule of his inviolable relative justice, for God is often said to repent of his revealed threatened plagues, as I have showed 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 die (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 Adam's mutable condition wherein he was created, unto which the promise and threatening of the first Covenant hath immediate relation; and then experience tells us that the threatening in case of Adam's 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 threatening chief to intent either eternal life in heaven, or eternal death in hell; as if Adam had been immediately under the threatening of hell-torments, and that there is no other way to redeem him from them, unless 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 threatening of damnation, there is not the same reason of Gods performing promises and threaten, for man's happiness 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 a● for threaten which concern man's destruction, there is no such tye upon God (unless his threaten be delivered with an oath) and therefore man will not, and cannot complain if they be not executed; and if God will rather glorify 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 rejoiceth against judgement. See also my note on Psal. 94. 15. His seventh Proposition is this. The Elect then having sinned, the Elect must die; if they die in their own persons, election is frustrate, God is unfaithful; if they die not at all, God is unjust, the commination is untrue: If elect men die in their own person, the Gospel is void; if man doth not die, the Law is void, they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus, who satisfied justice as their Surety, and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel, etc. 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 threatening, and yet he doth not prove, but beg the question, and then he makes his inferences: The Elect then (saith he) having sinned, must die; 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 die an eternal death; (in his fifth Proposition, he said, God's will was the rule of his relative justice) and yet he willed that the Reprobate should consequently die an eternal death in the same threatening, in case they did not embrace the mercy offered by the promised Seed. What God intended by that threatening is now evident to us by experience, namely, that the Reprobate should die a spiritual death in sin, and after that a corporal, and after that an eternal death; and that the Elect should die 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 die 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 God's infinite mercy and wisdom 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 will, and therefore Mr. Nortons' conclusion of this Proposition (confutes his former part) as God's will is the rule of righteousness: So Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness. The plain English of it must needs be this, That in as much as it was the will of God not to execute the threatening of eternal death strictly upon the Elect, but to moderate it, and to suffer Satan to inflict something only contained in it upon their Mediator, by piercing him in the footsoals at the same time when the seed of the Woman should break his Headplot, 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 threatening 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 die, 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 die, and satisfy the Law that man may live, etc. Reply. In that Christ did die for the Elect, it did not come to pass from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatening; But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdom, 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 Adam's 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 die in the man Christ Jesus; I have showed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a mere Pralogisme, namely, a deceitful syllogisms, which seemeth true when it is not. CHAP. III. The Examination of Mr. Nortons' third Query in Page 5. which is this. Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety? Ans. In three things 1 In the dignity of his person obeying, 2 In the quality or kind of his obedience, 3 In the acceptation of this obedience. SECT. 1. Reply 1 THere is no need to say any thing to the first branch of his Answer. But to the second branch, touching the quality or kind of his obedience, there is need of examination; for Mr. Norton makes all the obedience of Christ to be legal obedience, in opposition to the Dialogue that doth distinguish between his Legal and Mediatorial obedience. In page 6. Mr. Norton saith, His obedience was legal obedience, the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto. But I have showed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant did not stand in Adam's obedience, or disobedience to the moral Law of nature, but in his obedience, or disobedience to a positive Law, about things indifferent in their own nature; and from Mr. Rutherfurd, that the Command of God for Christ to die, was not from the moral Law, but from a positive Law only. Reply 2. Mr. Norton doth also contradict himself touching the quality or kind of Christ's obedience; For first, he saith, It The kind of Christ's obedience as Mediator, was to a peculiar positive law. But Mr. Norton doth 1 affirm that the quality or kind of Christ's obedience was legal; and 2 he doth contradict that, and saith it was more also. was legal, the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto. But secondly, he contradicts this, for in page 201. he saith, That the will of God concerning the Mediator, was, that he should obey the Law of Works, & more. This last word more is a contradiction of what he said formerly: If his obedience was more than Legal obedience, than his obedience was not the same in nature and measure, which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto (for he understands the first Covenant to be made according to the moral Law) and to confute himself the more manifestly, he brings in Pareus and Rivet in the former page, to prove that Christ's obedience as Mediator, was more than legal. Pareus asserting a special obedience imposed on the Mediator alone, and Rivet, a singular command of laying down his life, from Joh. 10. 18. Now let the Reader judge, especially such as are acquainted with Pareus judgement, whether that special obedience which was imposed on the Mediator alone, be no other than legal obedience, or whether it be the same in nature and measure which we in the first Covenant stood bound unto, according to Mr. Nortons' sense of that Covenant. And secondly, let the Reader also judge whether it be possible for Mr. Norton to make a true description of the true nature of Christ's satisfaction, while he is thus confounded in the nature of Christ's obedience as Mediator. SECT. 2. In page 140. He calls the Dialogues distinction of Christ's Legal and Mediatorial obedience, A new Law, and a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law. And in page 108. He calls this distinction, An erroneous, and mis-leading distinction. Reply. WHether Mr. Norton will own this distinction or no, the matter will be the less with a judicious Reader, because it hath the approbation of many eminent orthodox Divines (besides Pareus and Rivet) who do ground the said distinction, on these, and the like Scriptures, Joh. 10. 18. Joh. 14. 31. Joh. 17. 4. Heb. 10. 7, 9, 10. Psal. 40 7, 8. Rom. 5. 19 Phil. 2. 8. Es. 53. 10. Heb 10 7. In Vindiciae legis lect. 1 p. 13. See also Blake on the Covenant, p. 25. 1 It is disputed saith Mr. Burges, Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father, strictly so called; and howsoever (saith he) the Arians from the grant of this did infer Christ's absolute inferiority to his Father; yet (saith he) our orthodox Divines do conclude it, because of the many places of Scripture which prove it. 2 Mr. Gataker doth place the merit of Christ's obedience Bartho. Wegil. Sangalensis, in his Ans. to the 5 Reason of the 13 Thesis. and satisfaction wholly in this kind of Mediatorly obedience, and not in his legal obedience, for thus he answers to Bar. Wegiline (that holds to Christ's legal obedience for merit as Mr. Norton doth) Non est nec●sse ut Christus legis moralis sive naturalis placita implendo, vel sibi, vel nobis quicquam fuerit promeritus, non magis quam ut Angeli, qua creatura rationalis unaquaequae creationis ipsius nomine Deo creatori ex efficio debeat quicquid lex illa à quequam exigit. In English thus: It is not necessary that Christ in fulfilling the moral and natural Law should deserve any thing for himself, or us, no more than the Angels; seeing every rational creature in the very name of its creation, owes all things on duty to its Creator whatsoever the Law requires of any; and he doth fully manifest his judgement in his Elenchtick Animadversions upon Gomarus, p. 1. Thes. 1. p. 15. Thes. 8. p. 17. Thes. 9 p. 19 Thes. 11. p. 25. Thes. 15. p. 49. Thes. 32. And in his Animadversions upon the disputes betwixt Piscator and Lucius, in the meritorious cause of our justification, Partis primae Sect. 1. p. 2. 12. Sect. 4. p. 18. Sect. 6. numero 4. p. 19 Sect. 7. numero 1. Partis secundae p. 57 Sect. 2. numero 16. 70. Sect. 8. numero 6. And there he gives this reason, because Christ performed moral obedience for himself, and not for us. 3 Pareus saith, That those that ascribe the merit of righteousness De Justitiâ Christi actiuâ & passiuâ, p. 101, 102. and in his Epist. to Whitgenstenius. unto Christ's active obedience, or to his native holiness, do thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain or superfluous. Pareus doth often use this Argument, and Mr. Gataker doth as often approve it, not only in his disputation with Gomarus, but also in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication, in p. 13. 91. 107. 136. and when he had repeated Pareus his words in p. 13. he speaks thus to Mr. Walker, Now would I gladly understand from Mr. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, whether he count not him a blasphemous Heretic as well as Mr. Wotton? The same question do I propound to Mr. Norton, together with that cross interrogatory that Mr. Gataker propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith, That the Law which Christ In his Book of the h●a●t of Christ●●n Heaven, p. 50, 51. Psal. 40. 8. saith was in his heart or bowels, Psal. 40. 8. was that special Law which lay upon him, as he was the second Adam (namely it was a positive Law) like that which was given to the first Adam, non comedendi, over and above the moral Law, not to eat of the forbidden fruit, such a Law was this (which was given to the Mediator) it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice, over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us; and saith he, as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum (as Divines call it) given over and besides all the ten Commandments, to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest, such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam, and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal. 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship, just as the Dialogue doth, and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth. 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith, that Christ's obedience in laying down his life, was in obedience to a positive Law, and not to the moral Law, as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds, the one they call Justitia personae, the righteousness of his person, the other Justitia meriti, the righteousness of merit; and for this distinction, Christ's obedience to the moral Law, is called by Divines, Justitia personae; but his obedience in his death and sufferings, they call Justitia meriti▪ he citys Pareus, Dr. Prideaux, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Forbs, and Mr. Gataker, and Justitia personae they place in Causa sine qua non. 6 Saith Mr. Baxter, many learned and godly Divines, of singular esteem in the Church of God, are of this judgement. In his Pos. of Just. p. 53. and there he names many, and, saith he, in his late Apology to Mr. Blake, p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law, yea and a Law peculiar to himself, whereto no other creature is subject, even the Law of Mediation, which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place, and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men, is of special use etc. SECT. 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice, and was Legal obedience; And in the same page, he makes the Incarnation of Christ also, to be legal obedience. Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds, That God had ordained Christ's obedience in his Incarnation and Death, was not moral obedience, but Mediatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship. no other way to take satisfaction, but first by our Saviour's performing of legal obedience for us, and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments, for this way only he calls, The way of Justice: But in the former Section, I have showed that sundry orthodox, whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth, that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments, as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd, and yet they deny that Christ's obedience in his death was legal obedience, contrary to Mr. Norton. 2 I will add Mr. Ball to them, for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant, p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God, (though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments) and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience. The Law (saith he) did not require that God should die, nor that any should die that had not sinned, nor such a death, and of such efficacy, as not only to abolish death, but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent than that which Adam lost. And saith Mr. Ball, Christ upon the Cross prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant, P. 259. that crucified him, Luke 23. 34. But (saith he) that might be of private duty, as man, who subjected himself to the Law of God, which requires that we forgive our enemies, and pray for them that persecute us; not of the proper office of a Mediator, which was to offer up himself a sacrifice, who was to interecede for his people by suffering death. It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law, to fulfil all Righteousness, and to pray for his enemies, but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator. Hence the Reader may observe, that Mr. Ball makes Christ's obedience to the moral Law to be out of private duty, as a man, and not ex officio, out of the proper office of a Mediator, as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be. And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life, and therefore had power to lay it down, and take it up. And this power he had (though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are) not solely by virtue of the hypostatical union (which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law) but by virtue of a particular Command, Constitution, and Designation to that service of laying down his life. This Commandment have I received of my Father, Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter, The Law of the Creature, and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos. p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different: The will of his Father which he came to do, consisted in many things which were never required of us: And such (saith he) are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship. 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad▪ upon Gomarus, doth thus Upon Gomarus' p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will; By which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body, etc. That Will (saith he) is the Stipulation (or Covenant) of the Father about Christ's undertaking our cause upon himself, and performing those things that were requisite for the Expiation of our sins, therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation; for this Law set apart, he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself. And hence it follows, that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant, than not by his obedience to the moral Law. 5 If God had commanded Christ to die by the Justice of the moral Law, than his desire, That the Cup might pass from him, in Matth. 26. 39 had been a sinful desire; But, saith Mr. Rutherford, because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to die, therefore that desire was no sin, as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin, The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law, but i● was commanded over and besides the moral Law, as I cited him in the former Section. 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art (beyond others) by which he can make the miraculous work of Christ's Incarnation to be moral obedience, or else he would never say, as he If the Incarnation of Christ had been an act of obedience to the moral Law, than Christ's Godhead had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father's supreme Command. doth, That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience, in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent; for if his Incarnation which was an act of his Godhead, was an act of his obedience to the moral Law; than it follows, that the Godhead of Christ was in an absolute subjection, and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father; for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors. But Mr. Norton labours to prove, That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience, in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. (saith he) Christ was subject to the Law not as man only, but as God-man Mediator, Gal. 4. 4, 5. And saith he in the same page, The Law whereto he was subject, is the Law whereunto we are subject. Reply. His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine, because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator, as the Law of his Mediatorship, as in page 103. 192, 196, 197, 200, 240, 267. The sense of this Text must be sought out by comparing it with the Context; the third verse runs thus, Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the Elements (or Rudiments) of the world. Hence the Apostle infers, in vers. 4. 5. That when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. Any man that hath but half an eye, may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law (by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context) and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis: This place to the Galatians, saith he, speaks of the Law of Rites, therefore it comes not here to be handled (namely not in Mr. Nortons' sense) for Mr. Norton saith, That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject, is the Law whereunto we are made subject. But Mr. Gataker, according to the Context, doth call it the Law of Rites, and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense only; And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant, page 141. and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense, I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fullness of time was come: This fullness of time, must be understood chief of the time of Christ's death, though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation, namely in order to his death; for until that full time of Christ's death, the Jews were under ceremonial Types, as under Tutors and Governors: And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel, just four hundred and ninety years beforehand, for saith Daniel in Chap. 9 21. The Dan 9 24, 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly, and touched me, as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation; and in vers. 22. he said, O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding (namely or the fullness of time appointed of the Father) therefore understand the matter, and consider the Vision, for seventy weeks are determined (Dan. 9 24.) upon thy people, and upon thy holy City, to finish trespass (namely, to finish Trespass-offerings) and to end Sins See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw. (namely, to end Sin-offerings) and to make reconciliation for Unrighteousness, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness, instead of Ceremonial Righteousness by legal purifications, and by legal Reconciliations and Atonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the Ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh, Heb. 9 13. this kind of Righteousness was but a figure for the present time, that could not make holy, concerning the conscience, him that did the service, Heb. 9 9 For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away (moral) sins, Heb. 10 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ (which was typified by these Rites being made in the fullness of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father) had a true virtue and efficacy, by virtue of God's Covenant with the Mediator, to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins, and to bring in a moral Righteousness, and so then the ceremonial Righteousness must cease; and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel, that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousness, and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousness; and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers. 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many, the last Seven, when in half that Seven, he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation; The words are thus opened by Paul, in Heb. 9 26. But now Heb. 9 26. once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin, namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself; and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likeness of sinful flesh, and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh, He condemned sin, that is to say, the use of Sin-offerings; because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation, and Redemption, and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin, which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousness. And thus in the fullness of time, God sent his Son to fulfil the Ceremonial Law of Types, and then it follows, that all Ceremonial Types must cease, etc. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins, and from the moral curse; and this is worth the noting, that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Justifications, in Heb. 9 1. and Carnal Dan 8. 14. Heb. 9 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification. Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification, saith Dickson, namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings, such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple, Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek, justified, and such Ceremonial Purifying did typify God's moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christ's sin-offering; and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, they said to the Porters of the Temple, in Psal. 118. 19 Open to me the gates of Righteousness, I will go in to praise the Psal. 118. 19 Lord, called the gates of Justice, saith Ains. because only the just & clean might enter into them. And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter; namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins; which was a type of the true nature of our moral justification; And in this respect, the Temple is also called, The habitation of justice, Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither, were justified persons as to the outward man, yea all the Nation in this respect are holy, Exod. 19 and therefore any of Israel, though never so vild by moral sins, yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins, they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary, as justified persons in regard of that place; but on the contrary, if any man, though never so godly (and therefore morally justified) did but want this ceremonial cleansing, they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in God's Sanctuary, and were guilty of cutting off by death, Leu. 15. 31. Num. 19 13. so then, their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins, the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law, was but to typify their true justification by the death of Christ in the fullness of time, as the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgiveness, as in Jer. 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33: 8. sinned against me, and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me. Here cleansing is put for justification by forgiveness. And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you. And in vers. 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses. These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fullness of time doth purge us, Heb. 1. 3-and cleanse us, Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins, Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Father's Atonement, which doth formally expiate sin, cleanse it, purge it, and wash it away. See Ains. in Exod. 30. 10. Leu. 16. 30, 33. Numb. 8. 7, 21. Numb. 19 9 Psal. 51. 7. So that to them that are in Charist there is no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers. of Gal. 4. 4. is this: God sent forth his Son. This word sent, implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity, or else the Father could not have sent him forth; for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son, because they are in nature equal, Joh. 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent, which may be called a Covenant; I came down from Heaven (said Christ) not to do mine own (humane) will, but the will of him that sent me, Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman; For according to Gen. 3, 15. He was made of the seed of the woman, by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law: Being made of a woman, that was a Jew, he was made under the Law of Types. 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law: But he could not redeem any from the bondage of Moses Rites, until he had fulfilled all the Types, by his own blessed death and sacrifice, in the fullness of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father; and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites, and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God, and from Satan's Headplot. It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man, and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice, but that he did as he was a Jew only: but he fulfilled the Types as he was a Mediator only, by his death and sacrifice; and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us, both from the bondage of Moses Rites, and also from Satan's Headplot. And thus we may see, that the Types of the ceremonial Law, The ceremonial Types of cleansing, especially of Priest and Sacrifice, did typify our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christ's Sacrifice in procuring God's Atonement. Heb 9 13. especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice, were ordained to typify the Law of Mediatorship, and our moral justification by him; Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for man's redemption, let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies; for in them as in a glass they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for man's Redemption; and therefore when Christ came into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me (in place of Types) then said I, Lo I come to do thy will, O God; by the doing of which will we are sanctified, namely purged, purified, or cleansed from sin, as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying, see Ains. in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. To cleanse men from sins merely Ceremonial, the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance, Heb. 9 13. and hence the Apostle infers in vers. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ? This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this, namely in the super-excellency of this Highpriest above the Legal-priest in vers. 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood, as vers. 12. but in the super-●xcellency of this Highpriest and his sacrifice united personally, as vers. 14. How much more, etc. Suppose a Priest a● excellent had been found, and also a Sacrifice as excellent, in two distinct persons, yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction, because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator; but the admirable personal union of this Highpriest and Sacrifice, did comprise the act of one Mediator, for so saith the Text, he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit, namely by his Godhead, and for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, vers. 15. and hence it had its virtue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin. And secondly, hence it had virtue to confirm the Testament for the many, as it is expressed in vers. 15, 16, 17. Thirdly, I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9 27. with Gal. 4. 4, 5. which lies thus. He shall confirm the Testament for the Many, the last Seven, that is to say, in the very end of the last Seven, which is most precisely called The fullness of time, in Gal. 4. 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed, there must of necessity be the death of the Testator; for a Testament is confirmed, and of force, after men be dead, it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives, Heb. 9 16, 17. The next clause in Daniel, is this: And in the half of that Seven (which is three years and a half) namely in the end of this last half of the last Seven, which also is most precisely called, The fullness of time, in Gal. 4. 4. he shall end Sacrifice and oblation; and this speech is directly parallel to that in Gal. 4. 4, 5. He shall redeem them from under the Law; that is to say, by one and the same act of his Death and Sacrifice, he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation; and by that act he shall redeem us not only from the bondage of Moses Ceremonies, but also from Satan's Headplot; or as it is in vers. 24. By his death, He shall finish Trespasse-offering, and end Sin-offerings, and so make reconciliation for unrighteousness, and bring in an everlasting Righteousness; for he shall confirm unto us all the Legacies of the New Testament, by his death, where the Spirit for regeneration, and forgiveness of sin for Justification, are the general Legacies. Thus have I shown (though not so compendiously as I could wish) that the word Law, in Gal. 4. 4. must be understood of the ceremonial Law only; And therefore first, All that Mr. Norton saith touching Christ's subjection to the moral Law, from Gal. 4. 4. as the proper Law of his Mediatorship there intended, falls to the ground. And secondly, his charge of the second Heresy which he proveth from this Text, doth justly fall upon his own head; for this is certain, that if a Curse be not justly given, it shall not come on the innocent, Prov. 26, 27. but it must return to the giver, Psal. 109. 17. Thirdly, Hence it follows, that Mr. Norton doth again most grossly wrong this Text to prove that Christ suffered the curse of hell torments in his death, in p. 103. The last branch of Mr. Nortons' third Query is this: In the Acceptation of this Obedience. Reply 4. This Acceptation Mr. Norton takes for granted, which is denied. He should have proved, as well as affirmed, that God accepted of Christ's legal obedience, as our obedience (than he had showed his skill) and then it had indeed been meritorious, and of such value and sufficiency; But because he doth but barely affirm it, therefore I shall pass it by without any further examination here, because I have showed the contrary in the former Section, and also in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. His fourth Query is a bare Affirmation. And the reason of the denial I will show, when I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. CHAP. IU. The Examination of Mr. Nortons' first Distinction, in Page 7. which is thus: Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial, and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the Curse. And then he makes this to be the distinguishing Character between them. The Essential part of the punishment (saith he) is that execution of Justice, which proceedeth from the Curse considered absolutely in itself, without any respect to the condition or disposition of the Patient. The Accidental part of the punishment (saith he) is that execution of Justice which proceedeth not from the Curse considered absolutely, but from the disposition of the Patient being under such a Curse. SECT. 1. Reply 1. THis Distinction he takes for granted; for he shows not how, or in what sense any of these accidental parts do flow from the disposition, or condition of the Patient under the curse, further than by two Humane and Civil Resemblances of his meaning. But the Dialogue gave him a fair occasion, to clear his meaning, by objecting sundry particulars of the Curse, and instead of a fair answer, he puts the Reader off with this sleight; The reasoning of the Dialogue is impertinent; The dispute is about the Essential parts of the Curse, these are but Accidental, because they proceed not from the Curse absolutely considered, but from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse. Now seeing he doth thus hid his meaning, How can I, or the Reader judge what weight of truth there is in his distinction? let the Reader judge whether such unexplained distinctions be not rather evasions than explications. SECT. 2. YOu may see it, saith Mr. Norton, exemplified in Civil punishments; in the execution of death upon a Malefactor, the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of punishment: The gradual decay of the senses, impotency of spirits, are accidental parts of the punishment. Or thus (saith he) it may be further illustrated in the case of the execution of imprisonment upon a Debtor; imprisonment is of the essence of punishment, but duration in prison is from the disposition of the Debtor, namely his insufficiency to pay the debt. Reply 2. All the sufferings of Christ were to be performed The natural order of proceed in Courts of justice is not fit to exemplify the order of proceed in voluntary causes and Covenants. from the voluntary cause, being founded in God's good will and pleasure, and agreed on by a mutual and reciprocal Covenant between the Trinity, and not from the natural order of Court-proceedings; but Mr. Norton doth exemplify all this from the natural order of Court-justice: It is all one as if he should exemplify the Incarnation and the Death of Christ by the natural order of our conception and death: It is a known maxim, That paralleling of justice between cases Divine and Humane, is dangerous, and from Humane to Divine is an unsafe way of reasoning, and savours too much of prying into the secrets of God, contrary to Deut. 20. 29. and of too much boldness in giving a reason of God's eternal decrees, which is not modesty in the creature, Rom. 11. 33. But Mr. Norton seems to father this opinion and distinction on Dr. Ames in his Answer to Bellarmine about the Eternity of Hell-torments in Christ's sufferings (as his marginal Note shows.) But the selfsame Dr. Ames in his Marrow, lib. 1. c. 16. Sect. 4. 7, 9 doth express himself to be of another mind touching Eternity is essential to the Torments of H●ll. the Eternity of Hell-torments; he doth there make the Eternity of duration to be as Essential as the Extremity of pain, both in respect of loss and sense; and in Sect. 5. he renders three Reasons of this Eternity. 1 Because of the eternal abiding of the Offence. 2 Because of the unchangeableness of the condition which that degree of punishment doth incur. 3 Because of the want of satisfaction. Now compare Dr. Ames at one time when he doth plainly lay down the grounds of Divinity, with Dr. Ames at another time when he is pinched to answer Bellarmine's Argument, and then you may find him not well to accord with himself. Yea Mr. Norton himself gives another reason of the duration of Hell punishments, besides inability to satisfy sooner. The reason (saith he) why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body, is chief, because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first Resurrection, namely of Regeneration, whereby only the second death is prevented, and I may also add, whereby its eternity is prevented. This reason which Mr. Norton hath here given, makes Eternity essential to Hell-torments. The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments, thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance, hath four inconveniences attending it. This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments, whereby he labours to make Eternity to be no more but a circumstance, hath these four inconveniences attending it. 1 It supposeth that Divine justice in the execution of the legal curse admits of a satisfaction, contrary to Psal. 49. 7, 8, 9 Job 36, 18, 19 2 That Eternity of Hell-torments is not absolute without some Ifs or Ands, but only conditional, in case the damned cannot give satisfaction sooner. 3 To say that Eternity is not an essential part of Hell, is to say that Hell may be Hell, and yet not be Eternal. 4 If this part of the curse, viz. Eternity, may be taken away from Hell-torments, than Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it. It is safest therefore (as I conceive) to say and hold, that eternity of punishment, flowing from the Curse, is from the voluntary cause, or from the free constitution of God's good pleasure, as the due reward of sin. Mr. Sam. Hieron saith, That the extremity of Hell-terments are made known to us two ways. See Hierous works. p. 294. 1 By the Universality of them in every part. 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun. But Mr. Norton opposeth both these. 1 He dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part; he saith, That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body, but not in full extremity; and therefore he saith, what he wanted in his body, he made it up in his soul-torments, in page 121. 2 He dispenseth with the eternity of continuance, and grants an intermission contrary to the Scripture that telleth us, That the worm dyeth not, and that the fire never goeth out. The Torments of Hell (saith Austin de Spiritu & Anima lib. 3. c. 56. as I find him cited in Carlisle) are perpetual, terrible Terrors; fear without faith; pain without remission; the Hangman strangling, the Hellhounds scourging, the worm gnawing, the conscience accusing, and the fire consuming, or rather continuing without mercy, end, relaxation, or ease. See also at Reply 5. These, and such like things propounded in the Dialogue, Mr. Norton answers not, but puffes them away with this breath, They are circumstantial, and not of the essence of Punishment. SECT. 3. The Essential Punishment of the Curse (saith he in page 7.) is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise, called by some, The pain of Loss. Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Loss, Mr. Norton is like to lose himself, for he delivers himself variously, and contrariously, as may be seen by comparing his expression in this place, with his various expressions in other places. In page 31. line 5. He calls it the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise: Here the word sense is left Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the promise; but otherwhiles he saith it was in respect of the sense of the good of the promise by which wide differing expressions, he leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning. See Dr. Ames in Psal. 22. cited also in Sect 4. out. In page 68 He saith, That Christ had a taste of consolation at present in the Garden; But, saith he, his desertion was total in respect of Sense upon the Cross. In page 111. (he saith) That the pain of Loss is the not enjoying of aught of the good of the promises; and in page 112. he calls it The privation of the good of the promises. In both these places the word sense is left out. Now seeing Mr. Norton delivers himself thus variously, it may justly stumble any judicious Reader how to understand him, whether he be to be understood as leaving out the word sense, or taking it in; for that word left out or taken in, doth much alter the sense. In page 118. He tells us in the Margin of Separatio quo ad substantiam, in respect of substance, & quo ad sensum, in respect of sense and feeling. Dr. Ames in Psal. 22. saith, We are not to understand that the desertion (of Christ) was real, but only in respect of sense and feeling; and so must the privation of the good of the promise be understood; either that Mr. Norton doth mean it is real, or in respect of sense and feeling only. The former is a total privation; the latter is only partial. The former is judgement without mercy, Jam. 2. 13. The latter remembers mercy in judgement, though it may not be discerned at the present. Now if Mr. Nortons' meaning be, that Christ suffered such a privation of the good of the promise as is real, namely as it is contra-distinguished from privation in sense and feeling, than the word sense might well have been left out, because it being put in, doth cast a mist before the eyes of the Reader. But if he mean no more but such a privation of the good of the promise, as consists only in sense and feeling, and as it is distinguished from the said real privation, th●n it is very improperly called a total privation, and then the pain of loss doth contain much more in it than this; for a godly man may meet with as much as this in his life time, as Spira did, if we suppose him to be godly. This Essential punishment (saith he in page 8) was that, and only that, which Christ suffered. Reply 4. I cannot but wonder at his various delivery of himself. For in his 5 Dist. page 10. He saith, That Christ suffered the pains of Hell due to the Elect, who for their sins deserved to be damned. And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threatened Gen 2. 17. in Gen. 2. 17. to be separated from the sense of the good things of the promise, and calls it total in Christ, and total in the Reprobates, and all this flowing from the same Curse. And in page 68 He calls it his total desertion in respect of sense upon the Cross; and presently after he saith, The pain of loss, and the pain of sense, make up the full measure of the essential wrath of God; and they both met together in full measure upon him on the Cross. Mark this, He doth in both these places hold, that Christ suffered the full measure of the pain of loss. And in page 79. He saith, That forsaking is either total and Psal. 22. 1. Mat. 27. 46. final; so God forsakes the Reprobate: or partial and temporal, as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise; so God forsook Christ. Of this forsaking, Christ complains in this place, being a principal part of that punishment which Christ (as the Surety of the Elect) was to undergo. And presently after he saith, That Christ suffered the guilt and punishment of sin; a chief part whereof was this Divine penal desertion; and his following words do imply, that this was the curse of the pain of Loss. Mark, that in this place he holds only a partial forsaking. And in page 80. He saith, That Christ was forsaken penally, yet partially and temporally, not totally and finally. Here also he doth hold no more but a partial forsaking, and denies total. And in page 118. He saith, Though the separation of the damned from God, is total and final; yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partial and temporal, in respect of the sense of the favour of God, and only for a time. And saith he, There are two kinds of penal desertion, or forsaking; one is only in part for a time. The other is total and final; so the Reprobates are forsaken in Hell. And in page 122. He saith, That Christ was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time, Matth. 27. 46. Matth. 27. 46. But in page 123. He saith, That God forsook him with a temporal and partial desertion, and presently after, The soul and body, being separated from all participation of the good of the promise. Here the word sense is left out, and in the former place he denieth that he had any sense of the good of the promise. Now let the Reader judge, whether he can easily gather ou● of these various and uncertain expressions, what Mr. Norton doth distinctly affirm touching the pain of Loss, that Christ suffered; for one while, he calls it, Total separation; another while he saith, It was partial; and then the fruition and sense is put in also; one while he doth limit his sufferings to the sense of the favour of God as in page 118. another while he saith that he was separated from all participation of the good of the promise, in page 123. In this last speech he leaves out the word sense, which implies the highest degree of suffering; for it takes Mr. Norton in p. 123 holds that Christ both in soul & body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time, and so he comes up to Christ's total separation from God for a time. away the support of God's Spirit to bear the pain of loss, which God doth often give, when the sense of his favour is wanting, and it also takes away other communications of his love. In this 123. page Mr. Norton. doth speak out his meaning plain enough. Namely that the soul and body of Christ was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for the while; and so he comes up to a Total (though temporary) separation from God, and more than a partial, which he frequently denied in the places above cited, and comes up to a real separation, which Dr. Ames (above cited) doth deny; and to separatio quo ad substantiam mentioned in page 118. (and not only quo ad sensum) which Dr. Willet denies (as he there citys him) and the plain words of the Scripture do also oppose him in Joh. Joh. 16. 32. 16. 32. I am not alone, the Father is with me. Now if the Father was present with him, than he had communion with his Father all the while that his Disciples did leave him alone; for that place doth tell us, that these words of Christ do refer to the whole time of his sufferings while his Disciples should leave him alone; he told his Disciples that when the Shepherd was smitten, they should be scattered, Matth. 26. 31. Yea said Christ, Joh. 16. 32. The hour is now come that ye shall be scattered, and ye shall leave me alone, and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me, in respect of inward support. 2 On the other hand, if Mr. Nortons' expressions do own that Christ suffered no more in the point of the pain of loss, Sometimes Mr. Norton makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favour of God for a time. save only the sense of the favour of God, and but only for a time as his expressions are in page 118. Then he holds that Christ suffered no more in the point of the pain of loss, than many a child of God doth suffer in the work of their conversion, who do notwithstanding at the very same time partake of the good things of the promise, as Regeneration, Reconciliation, Justification, and Adoption: And then also, if Mr. Norton hold that Christ in his desertion suffered no more than this, he doth crosseshins with his other Principle in p 123. That the execution of the evil of the Curse denies communion (but not union) with God; but it is out of all controversy that Christ had communion with God in other things, although Mr. Nortons' supposition were true, that he was deprived of the sense of his favour. The Judicious Reader will soon perceive that the pain of loss in the essentials of it, must needs produce greater sufferings then only the loss of the sense of God's favour for a time, and Mr. Norton himself doth acknowledge as much in page 113. The pain of loss (saith he) consists not in the mere want of the favour or love of God; The Reprobates, whether men or devils, are always hated of God, etc. And secondly, saith Dr. Ames, Privation is the loss of an infinite good. And thirdly, These Scriptures rightly expounded, will put more misery on the pain of loss (taken essentially) then only the In his Marrow c. 16. Thes. 2. want of the sense of the favour of God for a time. Matth. 7. 23. Matth. 25. 41. 2 Thess. 1. 9 3 I will here produce one passage more from Mr. Norton, in Mr. Norton cannot maintain his penal hell in this life, without Gods extraordinaray dispensation. page 120. The dispensation of God (saith he) is either extraordinary or ordinary; According to the ordinary dispensation of God (saith he) the pains of Hell cannot be suffered in this life; but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God, Christ not only could, but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life. Reply 5. Ere while he said that the pain of loss was only the loss of the sense of the favour of God for a time; if his sufferings were no more than so, than it is evident, that God, in the course of his ordinary dispensation, doth suffer many of his children in this life to be wholly bereft of the sense of his favour for a time: Therefore in this case, what need is there that Mr. Norton should fly to God's extraordinary dispensation, except he think that the pain of sense, over and above the pain of loss, could not be suffered without an extraordinary dispensation? According to God's ordinary dispensation, he grants that Christ could not suffer Hell-torments in this life: But (saith he) he suffered them by an extraordinary dispensation, and yet according to God's ordinary dispensation the Saints have suffered the pains of Sheol. Now let the Reader judge what a refuge he is forced to fly unto to support his grand Maxim; and how far he yields the case unto the Dialogue, seeing he cannot maintain what he would maintain, but by God's extraordinary dispensation. It is a poor piece of Divinity to maintain that for the only truth, and to condemn the contrary for damnable Heresy, and yet have no better proof to fly unto for the support of it, than God's extraordinary dispensation. Out of all doubt Purgatory, and the Miracles that are in the legend of Saints may pass for current truth, if they may but fly to God's extraordinary dispensation, without demonstration of Scripture. SECT. 4. Mr. Norton goes on to explain his first distinction in page 8. in these words. The Accidental part of the punishment of the Curse is all the rest of the penal evil thereof, and befalls the Reprobate, not from that Curse simply, but from the disposition of the Patient under that Curse. Of these accidental parts of punishment (which if you please may well pass under the name of penal adjuncts) are final and total separation from God, total and final despair, final death in sin, duration of punishment for ever, the place of punishment, etc. Reply 1 THe Reader may please to take notice that (except Mr. Norton intent more under this unlimited word etc.) here is instanced only such penal evils as are compatible to a sinner under damnation executed; But the precedent parts of punishment that flow upon sinners from the curse in this life the Death in sin is the essential Curse in Gen. 2. 17. doth not mention; and whether he hold any of them to be essential parts of the curse, or no, he hath not expressed his meaning; but in his vindication of Gen. 2. 17. he placeth death in sin as well as death for sin within the compass of the term Death, equally flowing from the curse there mentioned; some particulars of that death in sin may be thus instanced; 1 The loss of God's Image. 2 Corruption of nature. 3 Servitude under sin, and Satan. 4. God's punishing one sin with another; These and the like are In mar. l. 1. c. 12. Thes. 45, 46, 47. reckoned up by Dr. Ames, and he doth show four ways how they have the respect of punishment. Now if Christ bore all the essentials of the Curse, than he must bear this of death in sin, as I have more at large opened the true sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But fear of manifest blasphemy will deny that Christ bore this essential punishment of the Curse, and thence it will also follow, that either Christ bore not all the essentials, or that death in sin is not essential, though it flow essentially from the said Curse. 2 If Mr. Norton hold that the punishment of death in sin which doth befall all mankind in this life, is not (de jure, by due desert as it is a rule of relative justice) of its own nature an essential punishment flowing naturally and essentially from the said curse, but rather by accident; then let him show how the said death in sin doth not proceed from that curse simply, but only from the condition of the Patient under the curse; but I believe it will trouble his patience to make a clear Answer to this. In his first Argument, in page 10. He saith, this sentence (In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death) was universal, given to Adam as a public person, and holds all his posterity, Gen. 2. 17. whether Elect or Reprobate, in case of sin, guilty of death; by death I suppose he means death in the latitude of it, according to his exposition of Gen. 2. 17. and there namely in page 20. he saith, that the death there spoken of is the wages of sin, Rom. 5. 21. and Rom. 6. 23. That is, all evil (the evil of Adam's sin excepted) in one word; therefore (saith he) equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of death. Reply 2. From hence the Reader may take notice of these two expressions, 1 That he makes that word Death, to comprehend all kind of death. 2 That the death there spoken of, is the wages of sin. To me this is a piece of strange Divinity, that Mr. Norton should hold the wages of sin to be either essential (namely such as flows from sin as the proper wages thereof) or else such as is accidental, namely such as is not the proper wages and desert of sin, but as it proceeds from the condition or disposition of the Patient under the said wages, and due desert of sin. SECT 5. Mr. Norton still proceeds to explain his first Distinction, in page 8. in these words. Absolute separation, dis-union, or discovenanting with God, is a consequent of Reprobation, not of the essence of Punishment, because the Elect, notwithstanding the commination stood in full force against them, yet they continued elected, and in Covenant with Christ; The Elect were in Christ, before they were in Adam. Reply 1. I Suppose Mr. Nortons' meaning is, That the Elect were in Christ virtually before they were in Adam actually. Hence I infer, that in the same sense they were elected in Christ, they were elected to be partakers of Christ, and his Ransom; if so, than I cannot see how the commination could stand in Seeing the Elect were in Christ virtually, before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them, but a spiritual death only. full force against them, seeing (according to that Election) they were by him redeemed from the curse of the Law, Gal. 3. 13. Enmity slain, Eph. 2. 16. no condemnation to them, Rom. 8. 1. and the hand-writing that was against them taken away, Col. 2. 14. 2 I confess I am at a loss to find out the force of Mr. Nortons' reason here given; But it may be it will the better appear, when it is drawn into the form of an Argument. And thus it may run. If the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam, and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them: Then absolute separation, dis-union, and discovenanting with God, is a consequent of Reprobation, not of the essence of Punishment. But the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam, and continued elected in Christ, though the commination stood in full force against them. Therefore absolute separation, dis-union, and discovenanting with God, is a consequent of Reprobation; But not of the essence of Punishment. Suppose the Antecedent part of the first Proposition were granted (though it cannot be all granted) yet I cannot see strength enough in it to make good the consequence. It is no good way of reasoning to argue, what is essential, or not essential in the Curse, from the event, namely from what the facto was executed, or not executed on the Elect, seeing betwixt them, and the Curse, the Covenant of grace doth (and from eternity did) virtually interpose, by Christ and his Ransom. It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as (being the proper subjects of the Curse) remain under it, without any interposition of Christ, and his Ransom by the Covenant of Grace. 3 I propound this to consideration, from a passage of Mr. Nortons' in page 117. God's rejection (saith he) as it is the Antecedent, not the cause of sin; so it is also the Antecedent, and not the cause of condemnation: Reprobation (saith he) is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty, not of Justice; Condemnation (that is, the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin) is an act of Justice, not of Lordship; no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger, because a Reprobate, but because a sinner. Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query; Was Adam rejected? and was that the Antecedent to Adam's sin? And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adam's innocency? 4. I say, that absolute separation, dis-union, or discovenanting with God, is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin, Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes. 1. 9 See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity, l. 1●. 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God, etc. be a consequent only of Reprobation, than it proceeds only from God's Lordship and Sovereignty (as Mr. Nortons' words speak) but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice. The dead were judged according to their works, not according to God's Lordship, nor Reprobation. And saith Dr. Ames, The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evil, but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between. 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation, and a proper effect of justice, as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal discovenanting (saith he) of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed, is the effect of justice; that being discovenanted they fall into the bottomless pit, is also an effect of justice, but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace, is a consequent of Reprobation. And why may it not be as truly said, That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates, and their falling into the bottomless pit, are consequents of reprobation, as say, that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation? they are alike consequents of reprobation, not proper effects of it, but rather effects of sin intervening, and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice. SECT. 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction, in these words, in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment, because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done; but sin is a continuing of the injury, and a provocation of, not a satisfaction unto justice. 2 Saith he, Essential punishment is an effect of justice, of which God is the Author; But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin. 3 Saith he, The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment, yet are left unto sin (for a time) This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript. 4 Saith he, in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause. The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice, whereof God is the Author; Sinful qualities are a defect, not an effect, therefore they have a deficient, not an efficient cause, therefore of them God cannot be the Author. 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment, but was without sin. These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man, and sinful qualities, are not Essential, but Accidental to the Curse. His first Reason examined. MR. Norton saith, That sin is not of the Essence of punishment, because sin is not a satisfaction to justice (but rather a provocation of it) for injury done. Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames, Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin, In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10, 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. norton's. Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adam's sin, and was a satisfaction to justice, till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace. Original sin, as it was from God's justice, was an evil inflicted of God on man's nature in general, as a satisfaction to justice, and so it was a vindicative punishment, till Christ was revealed, to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace, Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin, God doth often punish men's personal sins with sin, which in some sort may also be said to be a satisfaction unto justice; But as that sin doth proceed from man's disobedience to God's Command, so it is a new and further provocation. His second Reason examined. Mr. Norton saith, That Essential punishment, is an effect of justice, of which God is the Author; But saith he, It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin. Reply 2. It is granted that sin, as it is sin, namely as it is a transgression of God's Law, is not from God as the Author of it; But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God (and to hold otherwise were blasphemy) that sin as it is vindicative from God, is a fruit and curse of former sin, carrying with it the respect of punishment; so taken it is neither blasphemy, nor unsound Divinity, to say that God is the Author of it; And thus original sin was from God's justice inflicted on all mankind for Adam's Covenant-sin. And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition, God punisheth sin with sin; the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin itself: The infallible and penal futurition of sin is ●n effect of justice. The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice; and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1, c. 12. n. 45, 46, 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say, That God is not permissive, but active also, as a just Judge, in some sins of men, from these and the like Scriptures, 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King. 22. 22, 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9 His third Reason examined. Mr. Norton saith, That the Elect, though they suffer no part of penal justice, yet they are left unto sin for a time. The punishments that the Elect suffer, are de jure penal justice, but in the issue de facto are not. Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam, till it please God to make an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace. And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed, are, de jure penal justice, though in the issue de facto they are not. To be under the power of sin, though but in part, and so likewise to be under temptations, afflictions, bodily death, etc. are the due wages of sin, effects of the Curse flowing from it, as such in themselves, and by their own nature, though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect; and Mr. Nortons' own words do testify that the Elect do suffer that de jure, which is penal justice; for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus, This sentence, namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal, given to Adam, as a Gen. 2. 17. public person, and holds all his posterity, whether Elect or Reprobate, in case of sin, guilty of death. His fourth Reason examined. Mr. Norton saith, That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect, they have a deficient, not an efficient cause, and therefore of them God cannot be the Author. Reply 4. I may say, the same of natural death, it is a defect, therefore it hath a deficient, and not an efficient cause, and darkness also is a defect, therefore it hath a deficient, and not an efficient cause. Now let Mr. Norton show how either of these have God for their Author, and when that is done, he may see the weakness of his reason; If he be unwilling to answer, than Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words; Death is not from God as he did ordain nature, but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin; And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter; he first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature, but it is from God's justice as a punishment for original sin. The like may be said of eternal de●th, it is from G●ds justice, as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and believe in the promised seed. See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in Ro. 5▪ Q 22. in Ans. to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection, If Death be the punishment of sin, than God should be the Author of death, because he is the Author of punishment: He answers thus, As God created light, darkness he created not, but disposed of it; so he made not death, but (as it is a punishment) G●d as a disposer rather, and a just judge, than an Author, inflicted it. And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus; Will you say, That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil, ergo, it was not ordained of God? Did God, as Isaiah teacheth (Chap. 30. 33.) ordain Gehenna from yesterday (that is to say, from eternity) and not death? and so saith he, Sin came not into the world besides God's Ordinance. And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of God's Image in Adam, and of Original sin, as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3 ult. So then sin, as it is a punishment, hath an efficient, as well as a deficient cause. His fifth Reason examined. Mr. Norton saith, That Christ suffered the Essential punishment, and yet was without sin. Reply 5. Christ's sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause, and not from natural causes as ours do, namely from a voluntary positive Law, and not from the moral Law. But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no, is the great business of this dispute. The Dialogue denies it all along; let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversy (and which he knows beforehand will be denied) as a reason to confirm another doubtful point, this is no better than a begging of the Question. And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them, to prove, that sin as it is vindicative from God, flows not from the curse Essentially; and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason, do affirm as much, and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment (saith he) of sin with sin; but in his Manuscript copy, it is, penal punishment of sin with sin, is an act of vindicative justice. The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice. 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned (saith he) proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause. Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned, whether such as they carry with them to Hell, or the multiplication of sin when they come there, flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither. The former may properly be called sinful qualities, the latter, sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin; And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us, That they have more respect of punishment, than sin. In like sort the Sum of Divinity In his Mar. l. 1. c. 16. n. 10, 11. set forth by John Downame, page 254. makes hatred against God (in the damned) and final desperation, to be a great part of their punishment, as the Dialogue doth. See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Pigghius, in Chap. 2. prope finem. SECT. 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words. Duration for ever, and the place of punishment, are adjuncts, as the nature of them sufficiently shows. Reply IT is beyond my capacity, I confess, to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life, do come within the compass of a Physical adjunct of time; all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world, because there is no setting of them out by any measure of time; and why should we think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended? shall there be Physical bodies, and time then, as there is now? I wish the Learned to resolve this point; Eternity (saith Rutherfurd, In Christ dying) is not such a particular duration, as time is, that hath a poor point to begin with, and end at. Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to be an adjunct only to Hell-torments, by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay, and therefore he continues in prison. But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter. SECT. 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons' Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christ's suffering of the essential curse. Reason I. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles. For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere, Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul, to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments? His Answer in pag. 120. is this; It is evident, that as Christ suffered the torments of hell in kind in his Soul; so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments, equivalent to the torments of Hell, though not inflicted after the same manner. Reply 1. Any man may see that in this Answer he doth plainly contradict and confute his first principal Proposition, and also his Assertion in his first Distinction; for in this and in other places also, he doth affirm, That Christ suffered the essential punishment of the curse, and in pag. 123. he saith, That Christ both in Soul and Body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time; but in his Answer he dares not venture to say, that he suffered the torments of hell in his body in kind, as he did in his soul; But instead of making a clear Answer to my Quere, he propounds another Quere, Who can deny, saith he, but that he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell? His first groundwork was, that Christ suffered in a way of exact justice the essential punishment of the curse of the Law, and now he flies to the word Equivalent; all that know any thing of the strict justice of the Law, do know that it will not alter one jot from the punishment threatened in kind, to that which is equivalent; if Mr. Norton (being now put to a pinch) to answer this Quere, will allow of so much alteration from the letter of the Law to equivalency, than he doth also affirm, that the Law was relaxed to make a new Covenant for equivolency, and yet in pag. 146. and in pag. 174 he denies acceptilation, and thus he crosseth himself up and down, and stands not fast to his first groundwork. 2 He crosseth his first groundwork in page 121. It is sufficient, saith he, to integrate, and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ, that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned, yet what was not executed on his body, was made up in his soul. Reply 2. He that hath but half an eye may see that in this Answer, he doth fully overthrow his first fundamental Proposition, and his first Distinction, for in those places he hath affirmed that Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell, in kind; but now he saith it is sufficient to integrate, and make up the full execution of the full measure of wrath, that what was not executed on his body, was made up in his soul; first, he confesseth that Christ did not suffer the full essential Curse in his body, and then by some Revelation he knows that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul; believe him that lift, and yet he crosseth this also in page 123: for there he saith, That Christ both in soul and body, was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time; And thus he makes the eternal Curse in Gen. 2. 17. one while to be executed in kind only, and another while to be arbitrary, and to be suffered either in kind, or else in that which is equivalent; he allows a less punishment to his body, and so much more to his soul; doubtless he must know this by some private Revelation, for he cannot find any Scripture that is rightly interpreted that will own it. But yet Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it thus: The measure of Hell-pains (saith he) is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell. Reply 3. What a deceitful kind of reasoning is this, for all men know that the fallen Angels have no bodies, and therefore they must needs suffer the full measure of Hell-torments, without bodily Torments. And in page 122. (he saith according to his fundamental Proposition) That Christ was tormented without any forgiveness, God spared him nothing of the due debt. Reply 4. But Mr. Norton doth plainly cross this Assertion also; for he said formerly, that what was not executed on his body, was made up in his soul; here he acknowledgeth that Christ had some forgiveness, in respect of his bodily Torments. And in page 122. He saith, That Christ had not so much as the least drop of water to ease him in the least particle of his suffering that was due to him according to justice, but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time. Reply 5. This he doth also plainly cross, for in page 68 he doth acknowledge that Christ had a taste of consolation in the time of his Agony in the Garden, so that he doth sometimes give Christ a taste of consolation under his Essential Torments, and sometimes not a drop of consolation; either he must confess that Christ was not yet under the essential punishment of the Curse in the Garden, or else he must confess that his Position in page 122. is not true; But he doth affirm, That Christ suffered the essential Curse in the Garden, in page 70. in these words, He had clods, rather than drops, streaming down his blessed body, a thing which neither was heard nor seen, before, nor since. And saith he, The true reason thereof is, Christ died as a sinner imputatively, pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicting with eternal death. And in page 121. Christ suffered the Torments of Hell upon the Cross, where he bore the moral Curse, Gal. 3. 13. and in the Garden. Hence it follows, that by these two last places he doth justify his former Position in page 122. but still that is contradictory which I cited in page 68 And thus Mr. Norton doth confute and contradict himself; and being uncertain in his principles, he leaves the truth of Christ's satisfaction uncertain to a scrutinous conscience. Mr. Samuel Heiron saith in page 244. That the extremity of Hell-torments is made known to us two ways. 1 By the universality of them, in every part. 2 In that they continue without intermission, after they are once begun. 1 Mr. Norton doth cross both these Positions; For first, he allows some ease to the body of Christ, though he saith, It was made up in his soul. And secondly, He had also some drop of consolation to his soul in the Garden. 2 He also grants an intermission after Hell-torments were begun upon Christ; for in page 68 Christ, saith he, had his interims of respite, and in the Garden an interval of consolation, otherwise, saith he, He could not have fulfilled that which is written of him. But if this reason be found and good, why he had an interval of consolation in the Garden, then by the same reason he must have an interval of consolation on the Cross; for when he was in his greatest Torments on the Cross, and ready to give up his soul, than he remembered that something must be fulfilled that was written of him, for so doth John tell us, Joh. 19 28 Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, and that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst; Wherefore did he say, I Joh. 19 28. thirst? the answer is, because he remembered that that Scripture in Ps. 69. 21. must be fulfilled, and therefore he said, I thirst When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar (for the fulfilling of that Prophecy) he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost: Joh. 19 30. Therefore no extremity of Torments did confound his memory and will, from fulfilling of what ever was written; but though Mr. Norton doth allow some interims of respite to Christ in the Garden, yet other whiles he saith, That Christ (whiles he was in the Garden) began not merely to be amazed, but also to be very heavy. The word (saith he) notes Expavefaction, which was such a motion of his mind, superadded to his consternation, whereby for the time he was disenabled as concerning the minding of any thing else, being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God; he must have a better head than I, that can reconcile his former speech, and this latter speech together; before he said, that Christ had his interims Mr. Norton imputes the sin of unmindfulness to Christ in time of executing his office. of respite in the Garden, and an interval of consolation, or else he could not have minded the fulfilling of that which was written of him; but now he saith, that in the Garden, he was in such a motion in his mind, whereby for the time he was disenabled as concerning the minding of any thing else; It is strange that he should not be able to mind any thing else; and yet in his greatest torments on the Cross, we see, he was able to mind that one Scripture to be fulfilled, therefore he said, I thirst: Therefore I conclude that this interpretation of Christ's fear and heaviness in the Garden, by amazement, and by such a motion of his mind as disenabled him from the minding of any thing else but the sense of the dreadful wrath of God, is a most dangerous imputation of sin to Christ in the time of the execution of his Priestly Office, as I have noted it in Mar. 14 33. in Chap. 17. Sect. 4. And though Dr. Williams doth hold that Christ suffered both the pain of Loss, and the pain of Sense, in page 437. yet in page 447. he saith, In his seven g●lden Candlesticks, p. 437. 447. That all the Divine comforts were not detained from him on the Cross, when he said, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me. Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons' judgement cannot be found, because he doth so often contradict himself, and that Scripture of Joh. 19 28. Reason 2 My second Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Torments of Hell. If Christ made satisfaction by suffering the Essential punishment Payment in kind doth justify the Elect actually as soon as they have life in the womb. of the Curse in our stead; Then it doth necessarily follow, that all the Elect are actually justified as soon as ever they have life in the womb, and therefore before they can have any actual faith: (This opinion of Mr. Nortons' doth strongly support the Antinomian Tenent.) But saith Mr. Woodbridge, It is evident by Scripture, That none In his Sermon of justification by faith, p. 22. are actually justified till they have faith; and the ground of this is (saith he) because the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem, not the payment of that which was in the obligation but the equivalent, being not the payment of the Debtor, but of the Surety, and therefore it doth not deliver ipso facto, but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him, when he undertook to be our Surety. If a Debtor (saith he) bring me what he owes me, it dischargeth him presently; But the payment of a Surety is a payment that is refusable in itself, and therefore it effects not the discharge of the principal Debtor, but at the time, and according to the conditions between the Surety and the Creditor, and that time agreed on, was not till those that live to year's of discretion have actual faith. Reason 3 My third Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Punishment of the Curse. If Christ made satisfaction by paying our proper Debt, in kind Payment in kind leaves no room for the exercising of God's free pardon. , then there is no place left for pardon; But it is evident that God doth daily pardon believing sinners of his mere grace and mercy, yea according to the greatness of his mercy, as the Dialogue shows, page 31. 154, 156, etc. And the ground of this is because the death of Christ, was not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem. 1 If in, and with Christ (saith Mr. Wotton) we have formerly satisfied the justice of God, then there is no place left for pardon; De Recons peccatoris part. 2. l. 1. c. 21. Sect 8. for the same man, for the same offence cannot be both punished and pardoned by God, because pardon and punishment are directly contrary. 2 Saith Mr. Baxter; If the proper Debt either of obedience or suffering be paid, either by ourselves, or by any other, then there is no place left for pardon, for when the Debt is paid, we own nothing (except obedience the nov●) and therefore can have nothing forgiven us; for the Creditor cannot refuse the proper debt, nor deny an acquittance upon the receipt thereof. In his Apho: of Just. p. 169. But Christ having paid the Tar●●dem, and not the idem, the value, and not the strict debt: This satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept, or to have discharged us upon Christ's suffering, which yet because he did freely accept, therefore his gracious act is properly called, Pardon. 3 Saith Mr. Baxter in page 143. By reason of the obligation upon us, we ourselves were bound to undergo the punishment, therefore Christ's punishment was not in the obligation, but only ours, and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed; And whereas the satisfaction of Christ is called a gracious acceptation, a gracious imputation, etc. How can any man, saith Baxter call it thus; If it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ paid? to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation, needeth no favour to procure acceptance. 4 The chief Argument of Grotius and Vossius (saith Mr. Baxter in Appendix 39) is drawn from the Tenure of the obligation, and from the event. The obligation chargeth punishment upon the offender himself (only) In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die. Now if the same in the obligation is paid, than the Law is executed, and not relaxed; and then every sinner must die himself, for that is the idem, and the very thing threatened; so that here, Dum alius solvit, simul aliud solvitur; The Law threatened not Christ, but us. Besides, Christ suffered not the loss of God's love, nor his image and graces, nor eternity of Torment. 5 Every seventh year was a year of releasing Debts, Deut. 15. 1. figuring the year of God's grace by Christ, by whom we have obtained of God the release of our debts, that is, the forgiveness of our sins, Luke 4. 18. Mat. 6. 12. Mar. 11. 25. this figured, that we should be kind one to another, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us, Eph. 4. 32. Col. 3. 12, 13. Luke 6. 35, 36. Now Releasements of a debt, and exact payment either by ourselves, or by our Surety, cannot possibly stand with kindness and mercy: This overthroweth Popish satisfaction, and quencheth the fire of Purgatory, saith Marbeck, and say I, this doth overthrow Mr. Norions Tenent that will allow no other satisfaction but the suffering of the Essential Curse, in kind, by our Surety; and so consequently, he leaves no room for God's gracious releasement of our debts. My fourth Reason is this. Because it is exceeding derogatory to the infinite satisfaction of Christ's sacrifice to place full satisfaction in Christ's sufferings of the Essential Torments of Hell, on the Cross, before the To affirm full satisfaction by suffering Hell-torments before the compleatment of Christ's death, doth derogate from the sufficiency of his death and sacrifice. formality of his Death & Sacrifice, which was ordained to be the compleatment of all satisfaction, and therefore full satisfaction cannot be the final end of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton makes it to be. For in p. 32. he saith, That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God, which (saith he) doth answer the suffering of the second Death, before he suffered his natural death. Here the Reader may take notice that Mr. Norton makes the final end of Christ's sufferings to be for full satisfaction, and to be accomplished before his death, and so consequently, he makes Christ's Death and Sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction; such a poysonful assertion as this, may soon poison a great deal of Divine Scripture-truth. But of satisfaction by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ, I shall speak more hereafter, especially in Chap. 17. My fifth Reason is in Chap. 5. To affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell, is to affirm that Christ suffered from God's hatred, for the Essential Torments of Hell is inflicted from God's hatred. See Chap. 5. Chap. 6. and almost every other Chapter, affords a distinct Argument against Hell-torments, which the Reader will easily observe; But I will propound this one at present for my sixth Reason. My sixth Reason is in Chap. 12. The true nature of all Christ's greatest sufferings are called Chastisements in Esa. 53. 5. therefore they cannot be the Essential Torments of Hell from God's vindicative wrath. CHAP. V His second Distinction examined, which is this, in Page 9 Distinguish between the wrath of God, and the hatred of God. Wrath is sometimes taken for Hatred; and than it signifies Reprobation, etc. Though God in the second sense, not in the first, may be said to be wroth with Christ, yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ. God hates both persons and sins of the Reprobates; he hates sin in the Surety, and in the Elect, but he ever loved their persons. With this compare another speech of Mr. Nortons' in page 113. Then (saith he) the pain of Loss consists not in the mere want of the love or favour of God; for the Reprobates, Men, or Devils, are always hated of God, God's Love and Hatred are Eternal and Immutable. Reply 1. THough it be granted that the Hatred of God signifies Reprobation, yet there is also a Hatred of God that reacheth unto Eternity. This cannot be Reprobation, for these two Reasons. 1 The hatred of Reprobation, saith Dr. Ames, in his Marrow The essential Torments of Hell is from God's hatred to affirm therefore that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell, is to affirm that Christ suffered from God's hatred. l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. doth only deny good, but doth not inflict evil, save only by the desert of the creature coming between. This hatred of God doth inflict the evil of the curse upon the damned, Therefore it is a hatred that is distinct from that of Reprobation. 2 This hatred is Eternal; for though Reprobation be from Eternity in God, yet it is not Eternal; and the reason is, because the end of God's Reprobation is the manifestation of his justice, Rom. 9 22. and when God's justice is manifested, and the Curse executed, than the end is obtained, and so Reprobation ceaseth. See Dr. Ames in Marrow l. 1. c. 25. Thes. 32. Reply 2. In propriety of speech, God is without all passions of anger, wrath, hatred etc. these things are ascribed to God after the manner of men, when God doth that which doth make us think him to be angry, and to hate, because we do so when we are angry, and when we do hate. Hence it follows, that seeing Mr. Norton holds that God did execute the Essential punishment of Hell-torments upon Christ, as they are due to Reprobates, that God must do it in hatred to him, as well as to the Reprobates; and so the Hebrew Doctors in Chap. 15. expound the term Second death (from whom it is taken) to be a perpetual misery in the hatred of God; And so saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ's dying, page 35. 39 The Hell of the Reprobates is a satisfactory pain, and 2 It floweth from the hatred of God. But saith Mr. Norton, Though God did execute the Essentials upon Christ, yet in no sense could he be said ever to hate Christ. But how can it be avoided? perhaps Mr. Norton will say, because God did not execute the accidental and circumstantial parts of the Curse upon Christ. But may it not be more truly said, because Christ did not deserve the Essentials? Let the unpartial Reader judge between us. CHAP. VI Mr. Nortons' third Distinction in Page 9 examined, which is this: Distinguish concerning Imputation of sin. Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin, or of the guilt of sin: guilt taken not for the commission of sin, but for the obligation to punishment for sin committed; sin is imputed to Christ in the latter sense. Reply 1. I Grant that God's imputation of sin, is either of sin itself, or of guilt, or rather of both, for they are correlates, and therefore God's imputation, whether it be understood of sin itself, or of sin and guilt jointly, It doth always in Scripture-language refer to the same subject. But saith Mr. Norton in Page 41. Gild and Punishments are Relates. Reply 2. I grant they are always Relates, according to the order of legal proceed in Courts of justice; and in this way and order of satisfaction doth Mr. Norton go all along. But in point of Christ's satisfaction, I go all along in the way and order of Voluntary causes, and according to the way All Christ's 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 trial of Masteries, there the suffering of punishments is merely and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant, both in the Lawmakers, 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 Satan, according to God's 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 always 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 Adam's sin (saith Dr. Reynolds) is inseparable from In his sinfulness of sin. p. 35. the sin itself, being the proper passion of it. Lo! in this short sentence, how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adam's 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 Adam's 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 Adam's 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 God's justice to be the proper guilt and punishment of Adam's first sin, than it would follow that Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin: And now compare Mr. Nortons' distinction to the guilt of Adam's 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 Adam's first sin, namely, a spiritual death in sin. God imputes the guilt of Adam's first sin to all men, because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by virtue of God's Covenant touching man's nature in general. Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference; God indeed imputes the guilt of Adam's first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam, because God's Covenant was made with Adam, and the nature of all mankind in general, as I have showed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam; and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatened, but so was not Christ, he 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; Christ's 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 tax this kind of Imputation to be the very root and master▪ veyn of all Antinomianism. And in page 225. saith he, Be 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. He 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 we have already proved to be the greatest offender, as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect, both hanged upon the Cross, and others. In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively, in God's 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 showed out of the Scripture, that any man is called a sinner, but either he hath sin in himself, or else undoubtedly he hath before committed sin, unless we will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them. P. Martyr, I confess, speaks this of Infants that die 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 lie fast; he tells Pigghius, that God could not impute the guilt of Adam's sin to Infants, unless Infants had been first truly guilty of Adam's sin; and it is evident that all Infants, and all the world are truly guilty of Adam's 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 man's nature in general; So that by the force of that Covenant concerning man's nature in general, all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant, in case of Adam's 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 we 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 show 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 only 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 itself was imputed to Christ also, and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do. Secondly touching the point of God's imputation, I believe it cannot be showed out of the Scripture, that God doth impute either guilt or any other thing to any person, unless the thing imputed have first a real existence in the subject; as for example, God did not impute saith to Abraham for righteousness, until faith had a real existence in him, as the subject, and the like must be said of any thing else that God imputes, therefore if God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, than it follows that he was indeed guilty of sin So that by Mr. Nortons' unadvised collections, either Christ was a true inherent sinner, or else the Father was a true sinner in making a false imputation; I wish that Mr. Norton may find sound light from the Scriptures to get himself fairly out of this dilemma. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 33. To impute, in Court-language, is judicially to reckon unto a person, either that which is his properly, and not only as a legal Surety; so sin is imputed to the offender, Leu. 17. 4. Or that which is not his properly, but as a legal Surety only; so Philemon may put Onesimus debt upon Paul, ver. 18. Or by way of grace; so the word impute is used ten times in Rom. 4. Reply 4. To impute in Court-language! I wonder where that Court-language is used in Scripture about Gods proceeding with Christ in point of satisfaction: Surely the blessed Scriptures have no such language; and therefore surely he had need to get better proofs than any he hath hitherto produced, to prove that Christ was a Delinquent-surety in law, which I believe he will never be able to prove, or else his Court-proceedings in point of satisfaction will fail him; but I conceive I have sufficiently showed in Chap. 2. that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam in the first Covenant, and the matter is so plain, that he that runs may read it in the very letter of the Text; In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die; Thou as the head of man's nature in general, thou shalt die, as I have showed in ch. 2, Sect. 3. Christ cannot be comprehended as Adam's Surety in this word Thou, unless Mr. Norton will make him to be one of Adam's natural posterity, according to the manner of other men; Christ was not Adam's Surety to the fi●st Covenant; none but Adam as he was the head of man's nature in general, was in the first Covenant. See also Reply 6. Gen. 2. 17. In his appendix to justif p. 143 besides, the threatening to be suffered is plainly directed to the sinner himself in person; and therefore Christ was not in that obligation; and therefore also Mr. Nortons' Court-language of imputation of guilt to Christ, as to our legal Surety, is no Scripture-language, it is but human language. By reason of the obligation upon us (saith Mr. Baxter) we ourselves were bound to undergo the punishment; therefore (saith he) Christ's punishment was not in the obligation, but only ours, and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed; and whereas the satisfaction of Christ, saith he, is called a gracious acceptation, a gracious imputation, etc. How can any man (saith he) call it so, if it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ paid; to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation, needeth no favour to procure acceptance. This very acknowledgement that Christ's satisfaction was accepted of grace, doth clearly intimate, that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam, or else it had been no favour to accept it of him. The Father (saith Mr. Blake) might have refused his discharge from the hand of Christ, and might have exacted it of the See Blake on the Covenant, p. 18. principal, and Christ also might have refused to make such payment, because he was not in the obligation; These Reverend Divines, and divers others, do plainly see and acknowledge, that Christ was not our Surety in the same obligation with Adam. Secondly, as Mr. Norton hath found out one clear Scripture, namely, Leu. 17. 4. to prove that God doth impute sin properly to the offender; so if he could have found out another Scripture as clear, to prove, that God doth impute guilt to one that is no sinner, than he had hit the nail upon the head; But as for that place he brings of Philemon, ver. 18. saying, So might Philemon Phil. v. 18. put Onesimus debt upon Paul, it is not to the purpose, because it is but an instance of a civil imputation (not divine) from the mere voluntary cause in Paul, and not from the revenging justice of Philemon; of which voluntary offer much question might be made in a Court of Justice, how far Paul was obliged to suffer for Onesimus, whether any corporal punishment in kind, or whether a great sum of money (seeing Paul had a good warrant from God's Law to moderate in this case, Deut. 23. 15.) Suppose that Philemon had demanded of Paul a thousand pound damage, would philemon's imputing this debt of a thousand pound to Paul in the behalf of the wrong done by Onesimus, have been accounted a just debt in a Court of Justice? who is able to clear the intricacies of this instance? I believe this is no clear instance for a Court of Justice to proceed by in such like cases, much less is it fit for the present dispute; For our dispute is about Gods imputing sin and guilt to man, or to the Mediator on man's behalf, and not about one man's imputing to another, which is but humane and civil. If Mr. Norton had given but one Scripture-instance of a divine Imputation in the sense he pleads for, he had a fair opportunity to have done it, when he cited the other two places. But seeing he hath not done it, neither there, nor any where else, I believe he is not able to do it; and therefore for him to build so great weight upon this of Philemon, to prove that Christ was our guilty Surety, on whom God did justly inflict the Essential Torments of Hell, is to run himself, and his Reader, into a labyrinth of confused error. That Preacher therefore saith Tindal, page 170. that bringeth a naked similitude to prove that which is contained in no text of Scripture, nor followed of a Text, count a Deceiver, a Leader out of the way, and a false Prophet, and beware of his Philosophy and persuasions of man's wisdom, as Paul 1 Cor. 2. saith, etc. for the reasons and similitudes of man's wisdom, make no faith, but wavering and uncertain opinions only; one instance of a divine imputation of sin to an innocent had confirmed the point, but a hundred such instances, of philemon's imputing of Onesimus debt to Paul, is nothing to the point. If (saith Mr. Wotton) we take sin formally, than I deny that our sins were so imputed to Christ. His words at large I have recorded in my examination of 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3 As for that Imputation by way of grace used ten times in Rom. the fourth, I cannot but wonder at the citing of this Text to explicate 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 compass of the Text, the Text is not true: And (saith he) Elect sinners, not dying in their own persons, must die in their Surety, or else the Text should not be a truth. Reply 5. It hath been sufficiently showed, I think, that Christ was not Adam's 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 itself 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 die in their Surety, or else the Text should not be a truth; had he but said, or else I am mistaken, and have not given the right sense of the Text, than he had spoken humbly and truly, and then I had believed him. Re. 6 Though hitherto I have denied 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 Adam's fall, he was declared to be Adam's 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 man's Redemption from Satan's Headplot, in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God by way of Threatening 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 pieces his crafty Headplot; and he gave the Devil leave to do his worst to hinder it, and for that purpose he proclaimed an utter enmity between them, and bid the Devil pierce him in the footsoals as a wicked Malefactor on the Cross, to disturb his patience, and so to pervert his obedience wherein the root of an acceptable sacrifice doth lie, 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 sinless infirmities of our true humane nature, and in that nature, and with those infirmities to enter the lists with Satan, and to continue obedient through all his afflictions, temptations and trials, to the death, even to the death of the Cross, 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 be accounted as the upshot of his Priestly Consecration; which indeed must be completely finished before he might make his soul a sacrifice; and it is out of controversy, 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 he 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 complete 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 pouring out his vital soul, and rendering 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 joint 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 Devil's Headplot had not been broken; but because he continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Cross, and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power, even by the joint 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 he had no sinful infirmity, but continues a perfect Highpriest 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 so in an unproper sense he may be called our Surety, but not in a proper legal sense, according to Mr. Nortons' Court-language. This way of satisfaction, first declared in Gen. 3. 15. is the foundation upon which all after Prophecies touching satisfaction by Christ's death and sufferings must have dependence; and as it was first exemplified to Adam in the sacrifice of a Lamb, as I have showed in the Institution of the Sabbath, and therefore all those positive Laws touching Priest and Sacrifice declared afterwards to Moses, are but the further opening of the manner of Christ's satisfaction, and indeed those types were but the Picture of what was agreed on in the Eternal Covenant to be performed in due time by the seed of the Woman. 4 It may hence be gathered, That God ordained no other afflictions for Christ to suffer, but either from Satan's enmity in piercing him in the footsoals, meaning thereby his outward afflictions; Or else secondly, they were from himself in the inward man; for as he was true man of the seed of the Woman, so he must be inwardly touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and therefore as often as objects of fear or sorrow, etc. did present, he was to be touched, as our merciful Highpriest, with a greater measure of these infirmities, than any other man can be; but no Scripture doth speak a word in Mr. Nortons' Dialect, that his soul was pressed under the sense of God's immediate wrath; for in case his Father's immediate wrath had pressed those sorrows from his soul, as Mr. Nortons' term is, than those sufferings had not been voluntary from his own will, but constrained; but say all sound Divines, nothing was constrained in Christ by any supreme power, and therefore not by God's immediate wrath; though the Devil had liberry to use what force he could to his outward man, yet he had no liberty to force his soul, but himself was the only voluntary Agent in all the affections of his soul, he feared, he sorrowed, etc. when he would, and as much as he would, and therefore was often touched with the feeling of our infirmities in a larger measure than any other man's soul can be; and thus he was our voluntary Mediator and Surety. Mr. Norton still makes Christ to be our legal Surety, in the same obligation with Adam: on the contrary, I do still affirm that Christ suffered our punishments, not from God's judicial imputation of sin; for then indeed he had suffered from God's wrath; but that he suffered our punishments, only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant; and such sufferings might be and were undertaken by Christ; both without any judicial imputation of sin, and also without wrath: as in the trial of masteries with Satan, Enmity upon Adam's fall was proclaimed, and the seed of the Woman was commanded (but not in wrath) to enter the lists with Satan, and try masteries with him, and the Devil must do his worst to disturb his patience, and so to pervert his obedience, and Christ must exemplify the perfection of his obedience, by the perfection of his patience even in that ignominious and painful death of the Cross, until he had finished all his sufferings for his consecration to his Priestly office; and then at last make his soul a sacrifice for sin. But this way of satisfaction Mr. Norton dams for heresy: The Lord open his eyes to see better, and the eyes of those that are misled by him. 5 It was ordained in the Eternal Decree and Covenant, that Christ should be consecrated to his Priestly office (for the better making his death a sacrifice) by afflictions, Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9 Heb. 2. 10. God ordained all Christ's greatest sufferings in his Passion to be for his consecration to his sacrifice. To consecrate, is interpreted by the Seventy, to make perfect: As for example, when the people had worshipped the Golden Calf, Moses, by God's special positive command in Exod. 32. 27. 29. commanded the Levites to consecrate their hands, by doing perfect and exact justice upon the Idolaters, without respect of persons, not sparing their own sons, or near kindred; and this act of theirs is recorded to their praise in Deut. 33. 9 and by this impartial act of perfect justice their hands were consecrated to God. 2 The consecration of Aaron and his sons to the Priestly office, was to be effected by continuing seven days under the observation of certain particular Rites before their consecration could be finished, Exod. 29. 9 and Leu. 8. 22. and then the very next day after, their consecration was finished, Moses bid them draw near to the Altar to execute the Priest's office, by offering a sacrifice, both for themselves, and for the people, Leu. 9 7. But Christ needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself, and therefore it was only for his people. 3 As Moses is said to consecrate Aaron and his sons through many particular Rites exactly observed, whereof one was not small affliction (though willingly born by them at the Lords appointment) namely, Ye shall abide at the do●r of the Tent of the Congregation day and night, seven days, and shall keep the charge of Jehovah, that ye die not, Leu. 8. 33. This exact watch, for that space of time being separated from their wives and families, under the penalty of death, was doubtless a time of affliction to them, though, as I said before, willingly born at the Lords appointment. 4 It is said in Heb. 2. 10. It became him, namely, it became God the Father, that he should consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions. And it is also said in verse 17. That it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and a faithful high Sacrificer in things concerning God, and that he might make Reconciliation for the sins of the people. 5 In these two verses we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christ's Priesthood, both on the Father's part, and on Christ's part. 1 It is said of the Father, That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions; that is, to make his obedience perfect through afflictions; or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions, he would have objected thus against Christ; In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience, as I had to try Adam's obedience, this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God, as Adam was; Therefore it became so perfect a Workman as God was, to declare that Satan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman, and to do his worst to pervert his obedience, Gen. 3. 15. And secondly, It behoved Christ, to be made like unto his brethren, and to enter the Lists with Satan, not in his divine nature, but in our nature, and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and therefore it is also said, That it behoved Christ to suffer, Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect, he might be fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of God's people, and thus he became obedient to the death, Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate, and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions, and therefore presently after the Fall, God said to Satan, Thou shalt pierce him in the footsoals; and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son, but to deliver him up into the hands of Satan, for us all, to try the combat, Rom. 8. 32. So David said, The Lord bade Shemei to curse David: For saith Dr Preston in God's All-Sufficiency, There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command, and without a warrant from the Master of the house. God sent Satan to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets; God is without all causes, and the cause of all things; no creature stirs but at his command, and by his providence, Eccles. 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Devils Agents, did unto Christ, whatsoever God had before determined to be done, Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Satan, Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the footsoals, as a wicked Malefactor; but yet for all this, he shall continue obedient, and at last break thy Headplot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation; flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration. The Father delivered Christ to death, saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel, he delighted not in evil, as it is evil: But I may add, he delighted to see him combat with Satan, not for the evil sake that fell upon Christ, but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice. And all this was done not from the row of causes, as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins; but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only. But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall die, Ezek. 18. 20. Good (saith he) man sinned, ergo, man died; Christ was a sinner imputatively, though not inherently; And the soul that sinneth, whether inherently or imputatively, shall die. Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety, is a very unsound Doctrine, because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture misinterpreted. The sense of this Text is this; The soul that sins, i. e. the very soul that sins, namely, the very same numerical and individual person, that sins formally and inherently, shall die; for the text speaks plainly of sin committed, and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text, that did not mark that; and the Text showeth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner (that reputes no●) namely, he shall die. Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons' Answer; Man sinned (saith he) (mark his evasion,) for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken, as the Text doth, but he speaks it of man generally, or of all mankind in Adam; Ergo, man died (saith he) here he takes the word man, not for the particular individual sinner, as the Text doth, but for the individual person of Christ; and so his meaning amounts to this, Mankind sinned, and Christ died. By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text, no better than Harp and Harrow. Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently, he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death; neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed, and not alone of the effects of sin (as guilt.) Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety; neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is, by a Surety, to deliver other sinners from that death, as these Scriptures do testify, Ps. 49. 7, 8, 9 Job 36. 18, 19 The Apostle saith, the sting of death is sin, but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent, and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christ's suffering the second death. Adam's first sin, saith Bucanus, was common to all men's nature; but his other sins, saith he, were truly personal, of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die. But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christ's soul from Gods imputing our sins to him, Austin (saith he in p. 130.) calleth it a death, not of condition, but of crime; it is as evident as the sun, that Augustine's meaning is this, Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature, as fallen man is; but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations; and that Austin in fers, it was therefore just, that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing, the debtors whom he held in durance, believing in him that was slain without cause, should be set at liberty; See Augustine's sense more at large in Wotton de Recon. cpec. par. 2. l. 1. c. 21. Augustine's sense is no more like Mr. Nortons' sense, than an Apple is like an Oyster. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed, his death could not have been called a punishment. Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christ's sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant, and not from God's judicial imputation of our sins to him. mastery, according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law, I believe that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroke, and brush, and it may be, shed much blood, which I think would be accounted a true punishment (though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge) and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant, unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial; in like sort, God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil, and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office, and that at last the Devil should prevail so far as to pierce him in the footsoals as a sinful Malefactor, and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him, and put him to grief, Is. 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin. The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge, and skill, the valour and wisdom of this his righteous servant, in this conflict continuing obedient to the death, according to all the Articles of the Covenant, until he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross, and so he won the prize, namely, the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment, Christ suffered our punishments; no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin; and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from God's anger, as our punishments are: We indeed do justly suffer, according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed; but Christ's punishments, though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are (and more sensible to his nature, than to us) yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us; but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant, as I have before declared. And in chap. 12. at Conclus. 1. I have showed, that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combat doth lose the prize. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expressly said to be made a curse, Gal. 3. 12. It will thence avoidable follow (saith he) that sin was some way judicially upon Christ; for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature, but it presupposeth sin; wherefore he could neither have been made a curse, nor die, since the only cause of the curse and death is sin, from which he was free, but because he had taken upon him our sins. Reply 9 Sin, saith Mr. Norton, was some way judicially upon Christ; Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture? I find no other proof of it, but Scripture misinterpreted, as I have showed already; and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly fail him, as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and Judge, Christ accepts the charge as a Surety, and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice, which is the part of a Surety. And in the said page, God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety. And in pag. 34, 28, and 136. he saith, It was requisite that Christ should be made sin, i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches, and others, do imply, that God could not impute our sins to Christ, unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam; but that hath been all along denied and disproved; and therefore now, except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove, than hitherto, that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam, All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ, will come to nothing: As for his great proof, that Christ was such a legal Surety, from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument, and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there. But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods, rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body, a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since; The true reason thereof is, Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicting with eternal death. Reply 11. Touching his sweeting clods of blood I have replied, in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood, doubtless, it was miraculous, and if it were miraculous, how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of God's wrath? But I believe his Agony was from natural causes, namely, because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious, and painful death, which he did grapple withal in the garden; and I believe, if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause, conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satan's temptations, and with the natural fear of death, until he had overcome that natural fear, that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to God's positive Covenant, he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christ's Agony, than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause, Being pressed under the wrath of God; it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes; but yet it is also beyond it, because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ; it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from God's immediate wrath against Christ. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin, so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience; and a little after, saith he, the question is not, whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently, but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively. Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith, Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently; but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently; for his whole drift is, to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death, and none can possible suffer the second death, until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin, 2 If he was polluted with our sin by God's imputation, as Mr. Norton holds, than his death, and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God, But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry, not only with the Humane Nature, but with the person of the Mediator, because ●of sin imputed to him. Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ; for here Mr. Norton makes God to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures, and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety, and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures. But Mr. Burges on Justific. p. 176. saith, That Christ as God Man, was not bound by any imputation of our guilt; And he citys Zanchy for this. The forequoted Author (saith he) makes this objection to himself, How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin? He answereth, the person of Christ is considered two ways, 1. In itself as God Man, and so Christ was not bound by any guilt; 2. as appointed Head, and so representing our persons, in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him, Isa. 53. My drift in citing this, is to show, That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is, do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man, contradicting Mr. Norton therein. Christ in his obeying (saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2.) became not less than his Father, as touching his Godhead, he obeyed as a friend towards a friend, and not as an inferior unto death: The Lord of life submitted himself to death, and being immortal he died, How contrary is this of P. Martyr, to Mr. Nortons' kind of imputation? Surely by Mr. Nortons' imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures, the Godhead of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death, as P. Martyr saith, but as a Delinquent to the supreme Judge to the death, is not this kind of imputation good Divinity? Now let the judicious Reader judge, whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction; for there he makes the imputation of guilt, to be the obligation to punishment: But in sundry of those speeches of his, which I have repeated, he goes further, than I believe most men could imagine, by his said Distinction; and he doth all along make Christ's sufferings to be from the imputation of sin, that so he might deserve hell torments, and the second death, according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceed in criminal causes. Some Philosophers, saith Mr. Traber●n, do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another, In Rev. 4. p 49. Christ's sufferings were not inflicted on him according to the natural order of Justice by imputation of sin. But from the voluntary ●ause. and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other. But (saith he) we say, that all things come to pass, because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done. Ibidem, saith he, the latter Schoolmen say truly, that all things come to pass necessarily, not by the necessity of natural causes, but by the necessity of God's Ordinance, which they call necessitatem consequentis. And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order, neither aught he to be ordered by humane Laws; But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christ's sufferings into the order of Justice, according to the order of humane Courts and Laws, namely, by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin. And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants, seeing they see that they daily die; but (saith he) here ought we to except Christ only, who, although he knew not sin, yet died he for our sakes; But death had not dominion over him, because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes. And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speeches it is evident, that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ, as Mr. Norton doth, but he held that Christ bore our sins, namely, our punishments, according to the ancient Orthodox, and no otherwise, and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures, 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons' imputation, for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause, but Mr. Nortons' kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christ's sufferings, according to Courts of justice. But I would fain know of Mr. Norton, what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak, for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice, did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks' obedience, as well as of Abraham's? for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest, and Isaac was the Sacrifice, and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ, who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice; doubtless, if Abraham had killed Isaac, it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him, but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God, and not to a moral command from sin imputed, for than it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another, as Mr. Norton would have Christ's death to be; but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ, but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings. In our judging of the ways of God (saith Dr. Preston, in his Treatise of God without causes, p. 143.) we should take heed of framing a model of our own, as to think, that because such a thing is just, therefore the Lord wills it; The reason of this conceit (saith he) is, because we think that God must go by our rule; we forget this, That every thing is therefore just, because the Lord doth first will it, and not that God doth will it, because it is first just; but we must proceed in another manner, we should first find out what the will of God is, for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity. So far Dr. Preston. And it is now manifested, that the Rule of God from eternity, was, that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devil's headplot by his blessed Sacrifice, and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless, and separated from sinners, and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish, and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God, and of his Law, and that he should be consecrated through afflictions, Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9 and 10. 20. and to this end should, a● a voluntary Combater, enter the Lists with Satan, etc. as aforesaid. And all this may be further cleared, if we consider what kind of cause Christ's death is, to take away our sins; it is (saith M. Burges) a meritorious cause (in his just. p. 190.) which is in the rank of moral causes, of which the rule is not true, Posi●â causâ sequitur effectus; This holdeth in natural causes, which produce their effects; But (saith he) moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby; as for example, God the Father is moved through the death of Christ, to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth; so this rule must be applied to the voluntary and eternal Covenant, and also to the event, as from the voluntary cause. CHAP. VII. His Fifth Distinction Examined, which is this: Distinguish between a Penal Hell, and a Local Hell, Christ suffered a Penal Hell, but not a Local Hell. Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells, that have the same Essential Torments, one Temporary, and the other Eternal; one for Christ alone in this world, and the other for Reprobates in the world to come. By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessedness, the one Temporary, and the other Eternal; for if Scripture may be judge, there are as many Heavens for Essential blessedness, as there are Hells for Essential torment. I think the judicious Reader may well smile at this odd Distinction; and yet I do not see how Mr. 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 mere 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 Christ's 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 endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body; namely, to endure Gods penal wrath (as he doth presently after call it) such as Christ bore: And in Chap. 13. he saith, There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a mere 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 die the second Death, till they be first dead in sin. 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm, that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell in this penal Hell by God's 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 only 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 ways.] 1 By a compartive Argument. 2 By the Testimony of the Schoolmen. 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 joys of Heaven out of Heaven. His words in page 119. are these; As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys 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 be remembered to be the Essential torments of Hell; For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith, That the essential part was that, and only, that which Christ suffered; Luke 9 28. Who ever is partaker of the essential joys of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death. In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joys of Heaven out of Heaven, by Luke 9 28. and then I believe his body had been glorified, and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death; for if his Manhood had partaken of the essential joys of Heaven, than he must be clothed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorify me with thyself; and in vers. 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; or else he reason's impertinently, and not to the point in hand: And thus he hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these sufferings of Christ, and these glorious Revelations, in a metaphorical sense, than he might have accorded with the Scripture sense, for great joys by an hyperbole may well be called the joys of Heaven, but not the Essential joys; neither do I believe that the Manhood of Christ did partake of the Essential joys 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 Schoolmen; For in page 120. he saith, The founder Schoolmen 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 Schoolmen did not teach so much, than 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. norton's 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 itself. Reply. I confess, 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 he is glad to fly 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. He 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 fly 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, he doth admit of the word Equivalent; such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles. 2 The metaphorical sense of Hell may be thus considered, Sheol in the Old Testament is always 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 signify the eternal estate of them that die, whether they be 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, as I have noted in the first Distinction; one may be in the Hell of conscience (saith Mr. Wilson in his mystical cases, p. 188.) who shall never come into the hell of the damned; But saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ dying, page 35. 39 The hell in the soul of God's children, and the hell of the Reprobate, differ in Essence and Nature. 4 Bucer makes Christ's bodily death to be penal Hell, his Bucer in Mat. ●7. ●3. words, translated by Carlisle, speak thus; The ancient Fathers make no mention of Limbus or Purgatory; Let us (saith he) let this pass as the inventions of men; and let us rather give thanks to the Lord, who hath thrust his own Son into infernum, that is to say (saith he) that willed him to die truly, that by his death we might be delivered. Two things are observable in the words of Bucer. 1 That he calls the bodily death of Christ, Infernum, or Hell. 2 That he ascribes our deliverance from hell, to the true bodily death of Christ. 5 I grant that Christ suffered the sorrows of Sheol and Hades in a Metaphorical sense, but in no sense did he suffer the sorrows of Gehenna, and that is the word that is properly meant of Hell torments; so that by Mr. Norton, Christ must suffer the Essential torments of Gehenna, in a penal Gehenna in this world. Of which see Mar. 9 43. 45. 6 Mr. Norton by his distinction of a local and penal Hell, See Marbecks Come pl. p 22. doth much favour the opinion of the Albanenses, whose fourth Heresy was this, That in Hell there are no other pains than be in this world; and Mr. Norton holds, that there are no other essential pains than what Christ's suffered in this world: The opinions are very near a kin, though in other matters I esteem Mr. Norton far afore them. SECT. 3. 3. MR. Norton labours to confirm his said distinction of a local and penal Hell, by this Scripture, Thou wilt not leave psal. 16. 10. Act 2. 27. It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret Hell in the same Scripture, first to signify Hell torments, and then only the the Grave. my soul in Hell; this is cited in Psal. 16. 10. and in Act. 2. 27. The soul, saith he, in page 39 is understood by judicious and learned Authors properly, Hell Metaphorically, for such pains as are equivalent to the pains of Hell itself. But yet Mr. Norton doth fully contradict and confute both himself and his learned and judicious Authors; for in page 110. he saith, That the word Hades in the Creed is doubtless to be interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture; But saith he in Acts 2. 27. It is taken for the Grave. Here he affirms it is taken for the Grave, and yet in the place forecited, he saith, It is taken for the pains of Hell itself, by the judgement of learned and judicious Authors. I confess I cannot but wonder that he should make hell in one and the same text to signify such different things; it is a manifest testimony of the uncertainty of his judgement. 2 If Haides in Greek, and Sheol in Hebrew, and Hell in English, signify no more but the Grave in the said Scriptures, than I wonder how Mr. Norton can interpret the word Soul properly, of the immortal Soul of Christ, as he doth with the approbation of learned and judicious Authors; Doth the same Scripture in the same words, affirm that Christ's immortal Soul did one while suffer the pains of hell in this life, and another while lie buried with his body in the Grave? Is not this to make the holy Scripture to be no better than a leaden Rule to be bowed this way, & that way, after the fantasies of men at their pleasures? He tells me in page 258. That the Scripture lieth not in the sound of words, but in the sense; but in this he doth halt of his own sore, and therefore I retort his own words to himself, that most pestilent Doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture, etc. 3 Saith Mr. Norton in page 39 The soul in Psal. 16. 10. and Act. 2. 27. is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly; If Mr. Norton do approve the judgement of those learned and judicious Authors to the Reader, why then doth he in page 110. take Hell for the Grave; was his soul (properly taken) buried in his Grave? Secondly, why doth Mr. Norton blind the Reader, by saying that learned and judicious Authors do take the word Soul properly? seeing he cannot be ignorant that other learned and judicious Authors take the word Soul there for the vital soul only, that liveth and dyeth with the body, & that soul might be dislocated in his body when he died, and so it might be buried with his body in the grave. Mr. Ains. on the word Soul in Psal. 16. 10. in his conclusion saith thus, Compare it (namely this word Soul) with the like in other places, as Psal. 30. 4. Psal. 116. 8. and Psal. 89. 49. and 88 4. and 94. 17. (all which places are clearly meant of the vital soul) and then he makes application of this to Christ: Christ (saith he) gave his soul for the Ransom of the world, and poured it out to death, Isa. 53. 12. Mat. 20. 28. Joh. 10. 11, 15, 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus, these words, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, teach us Christ's Resurrection; as if he should say, Thou wilt not leave me to the power of Death, or Grave, to be consumed. Mark this close of Mr. ainsworth's, he interprets Hell to be Death, or the Grave. 2 Mr. Broughton, in his two Works defensive, expounds Psal. 16. 10. thus, Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death; In these words he expounds Christ's soul to be his vital soul, and Sheol, Hell, to be Death (as Bucer did at fourthly above) Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death, and by a consequent (saith Bro.) nor my body in the Grave, nor my soul among souls, till my body see corruption. And in his explication of the Article of Descent into Hell, page 16. he saith thus, Peter and Paul both citing this 16. Psalms, do cite it to no further death then that which all must feel. 3 Mr. Carlisle saith thus on Psal. 16. 10. Thou wilt not leave Nephes, my body in the Grave, for indeed the vital soul is a part of In his book against Christ's local Descent. p. 32. the body; and thus speaks our larger Annotations on Psal. 16. 10. I confess it is to my admiration that Mr. Norton should commend that exposition of the word Soul, for Christ's immortal soul, properly, and yet by Sheol, and Haides doth understand no The soul in the N. T. is often put for the vital soul. more but the Grave in page 110. And thus you see that Mr. Norton hath confounded his own Distinction. The Hebrew Nephesh, and the Greek Psuche, which we call Soul, saith Ainsworth, in Ps. 16. 10. hath the name of Breathing and Respiring; and (saith he) it is the vital spirit that all quick things move by, therefore beasts, birds, fish, and creeping things, are called Living souls, Gen. 1. 20. 24. and this soul is sometimes called The blood, Gen. 9 4. because it is in the blood of all quick things, Leu. 17. 11. 2 Christopher Carlisle proves on the Article of Descent, page 144. 153. that Nephesh is never used for the immortal soul in all the Old Testament; and saith Dr. Hammond in 1 Thes. 5. 23. Psuche, the soul, doth ordinarily in the New Testament signify The life; and saith Carlisle in p. 155. Psuchee doth signify the immortal soul but in three places, namely, in Mat. 10. 27, 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9 and (saith he) in the New Testament it signifies for the most part that which Nephes doth in the Old. And secondly, he makes it to signify the fear of death in Christ's humane nature, in Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. But thirdly, Though Neshemah doth also signify the vital soul, yet 'tis never used for the vital soul of the unreasonable creatures, as Nephesh is, but only of man, and therefore the Hebrews do often understand by it the immortal or the rational soul. See Aben Ezra upon Eccles. 3. 21. 7. 5. And saith Carlisle in p. 162. Neshemah hath its name of Shamaim Heaven, for that the immortal soul cometh from Heaven. These things considered, I think Mr. Norton hath but little ground to persuade his Reader from his learned Authors, that the word Soul in Psal. 16. 10. is to be understood properly of the immortal Soul of Christ. CHAP. VIII. The Examination of Mr. Nortons' eight Arguments. His first Argument is this, in Page 10. Either Christ suffered the Justice of God, instead of the Elect, denounced against sin, Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispense with the Execution thereof, without the violation of his Justice. But God could not dispense with the Execution thereof without the violalation of his Justice. Reply 1. BOth Propositions are unsound. 1 The major, because he presupposeth from Gen. 2. 17. That Christ was included in the first Covenant, as Adam's Surety, in the same Obligation with him. This hath been denied and answered several times; and indeed the plain letter of the text doth directly outface it, both in Gen. 2▪ 17. and in Deut. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18 4. etc. All these Gen. 2. 17. places do directly threaten the sinner himself only. Yea some Divines that hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering Gods vindicative wrath, yet in this they do oppose Mr. Norton. In the rigour of the Law (saith Mr. Ball) the Delinquent himself See Ball on the Covenant, p. 290. is in person to suffer the penalty denounced, Every man shall bear his own burden, Gal. 6. 5. And in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death, Gen. 2. 17. so that the Law, in the rigour thereof, doth not (saith he) admit of any commutation or substitution of one for another; and so he concludes, that satisfaction was made by another free Covenant. 2 The minor is unsound; for it affirms, that God could not dispense with the execution of the (Essential) Curse, without the violation of his Justice; But in this Tenent Mr. Norton 1 King. 21. ●. M. Norton leaves the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty, because he doth one while say that Christ suffered the essential curse, & only that, & another while that only which was equivalent. doth sufficiently confute himself; for he doth often say, that Christ suffered pains equivalent to the pains of Hell: If they were but equivalent, than they were not the same, and then God did dispense with the Essential pains in kind, which is contrary to his minor, and contrary to his first Distinction. Ahab offered unto Naboth that which was equivalent to the full worth of his Vineyard, but yet Ahab could not accept it for satisfaction, because God had determined in Leu. 25. 23. That the Land should not be fold for ever, and therefore Naboth could not account any equivalent thing to be satisfaction, but his Vineyard in kind only, 1 King. 21. 3. So changeable are Mr. Nortons' Principles, that they can have but little truth in them. Reply 2. But Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his minor, by Matth. 5. 18. Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. This Scripture Mr. Norton doth cite several times, 1. To prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse for us, as in p. 10. 104. 213. 2 He doth also often cite it, to prove that Christ, as God-Man Mediator, fulfilled the Law in a way of works for us, as in p. 152, 192, 197, 240, 267. Therefore, seeing he doth lay such great weight upon this Text, I think it needful to examine the true sense of this Text, and then it will appear that Mr. Norton doth pervert the true sense of it to his corrupt ends. This Text of Mat. 5. 17, 18. doth speak of Christ's fulfilling Mat. 5. 17, 18. the Law; but not in respect of his own personal conformity to it (as Mr. Norton would have it to speak) but it speaks of his fulfilling it by filling up the spiritual sense of it, which was suppressed by the Scribes and Pharisees; he fulfilled, that is to say, he filled up the true Interpretation of it in its latitude, for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward, in the way of sanctified obedience: In this sense Matthew saith, That Christ came to fulfil the Law; and in this sense it did belong to his Mediators Office, as he was the Prophet of his Church, to rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for destroying the spiritual sense of the Law, by their literal and corrupt Interpretations; But saith Christ, I came to fulfil it, by giving the spiritual sense and meaning of it, for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward, as ver. 21, 27, 33, 38, 43. do plainly show; And then he concludes with an exhortation in ver. 48. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect; namely, be perfect in Exposition and Doctrine, for it is the perfect rule of an upright life and conversation. Mr. Joseph Mead on Mat. 5. 17. saith thus, Think not that I In his Diatribae or discourses on several Scriptures. am come to take away the obligation of the Rule of man's duty to God, and to his Neighbour, given first by Moses in the Law, and afterward repeated and inculcated by the Prophets; but to fulfil them, that is, to supply or perfect those Rules and Doctrines of just and unjust contained in them, by a more ample inetrpretation, and other improvement befitting the state of the Gospel. For surely, saith he, this must be the meaning of this speech of 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 citys Irenaeus to the same sense (our Lord saith Irenaeus) instead Ire●ae●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, etc. all which, saith he, is not of one that dissolves the Law, but fulfilleth and enlargeth it. Secondly, Mr. Burges saith, Although it be true, that Christ Vindiciae legis, p. 177. may be said to fulfil the Law divers ways; 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 fulfil 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 Prologue. & 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 only, and to make it go upright where it halteth. And presently after, I do but only 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 falsely 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 fulfil 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. Edition. soon as he publicly 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 fulfil 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, etc. 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 Commandments 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 fulfil 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 spoke of fulfilling Calvin on Mat. ● 17, 18. the Law in Matth. 5. 18. in Mr. Nortons' sense; he treats 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 misalleged 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 Heretics 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 threatened 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, threatened 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, etc. 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 satisfy the Law for them. But Christ was the Surety of the Elect, Heb. 7. 22. Reply. I deny the major, for I have showed 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 evil. 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, etc. 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 God's oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ, above the temporary Priesthood 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 Leu. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi, in Aaron and his Sons Leu. 8▪ (which Covenant was life and peace, Mal. 2. 5. called also God's 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 conscience● 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 swore, 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 pre-eminence 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 fixed in mortal persons, one succeeding the other, and as was itself 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 God's 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 overturnes it. For this Exposition makes Christ to be God's Priest, and God's 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 atonement for the people for their ceremonial sins, by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their atonement; but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David, Psa. 110. That he would raise a Priest out of his loins after the order of Melchisedech, and that by his own blood he should make atonement, to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins, and so he should be God's 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 died 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 itself obligeth us to fulfil the Covenant of Works in our Surety. Thirdly, I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige ●● to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking, as I have showed at large in my exposition of Leu. 18. 5. in cha. 2. sect. 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not oblige us to fulfil 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 Adam's obedience or disobedience was made by one act, as I have showed 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. etc. 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 believe 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 itself, 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 a Covenant of Grace, and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandments. The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant, and to it did belong Dicaiomata, Ordinances of Divine Service, Heb. 1. 9 which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances, or Decrees, as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps. 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata, Justifications (as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4.) And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed, it is said to be Tzedek, justified; and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed, were justified as to their personal appearing in God's Sanctuary; but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances, or Righteous Statutes, in Numb. 31. 21. The same word, saith he, Paul useth, in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances, or righteous Statutes of the Law (namely, in the spiritual signification) and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statute of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by God's imputation, because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law, as Ains. & the Dialogue do carry it. the Law might be fulfilled in us; And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances, as Circumcision, the Tabernacle, and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary, these are called the first Covenant, in Heb. 9 1. and the outward performances of these Services (though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application) did ex opere operato justify their persons in respect of their coming into God's presence in his Sanctuary; but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship, and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away, Heb. ●. 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works. 1. By Circumcision, Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism, Exod. 19 10. 3. By Sacrifice, Exod. 24. 5. See Ains. in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts, to assure them, that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it, they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins, and then they might freely come unto God's presence in his Sanctuary, or else they might not, under the penalty of being cut off, as I noted before on Gal. 4 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant, 2 King. 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4, 7. See Ains. in Psa. 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disannul the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed (430 years) afore of God, in respect of Christ, Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts, Heb. 9 18, 19 and the people entered into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant, Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold the blood of the Covenant that Jehovah hath stricken with you, concerning all these words, Exod, 24. 7, 8. and thus the first Covenant or Testament was not dedicated without blood, Heb. 9 18, 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hyssop, Heb. 9 19, 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law, Leu. 14. 6, 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings, though they were effectual by God's Ordinance, ex opere operato, to justify the outward man, for their coming into God's presence in his Sanctuary; yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience ftom their moral sins; and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ, he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law, wherein he formerly trusted, Phil. 3. 9 And, saith the Apostle, If the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; and if the blood of Birds, and water, and hyssop, and scarlet, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; How much more (saith the Apostle) shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works? Heb. 9 13, 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal. 51. 9 Numb. 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5, 18. & 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good, nor forbidden that which was evil in itself, and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good, Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people, for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts, were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment, and therefore their office must be disannulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it, and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath, because they should be changed; but Christ was made a Priest by an oath, after the order of Melchisedech, And by so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament, because God by his oath made him a Surety, and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation, according to the promises of the better Testament. And thus have I opened the word ●etter Covenant. Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant, but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument; and therefore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place, and to be old, and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death, Heb. 9 15. His Fourth Argument examined, is this, in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin, or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied; for it is as true as Salvation itself, that the Elect satisfy it not in themselves. Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation itself, that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to man's nature in general, in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and that death is the essential curse that is there threatened, as I have showed in chap. 2. sect. 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death, which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind, or by that which is equivalent. afterwards as a consequent of that death threatened in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christ's satisfaction. It is not required by the Rules of Equity, whether Divine or Humane, that satisfaction for wrongs done should always be made in kind, or by way of counterpassion; as for example, in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbour, or butcher his , were it as good and as just satisfaction for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person, or live goods, as it is to award him satisfaction by a valuable sum of money, or the like? But it is evident, that the Law may be satisfied two ways, 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law, which requires Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steals one Ox, five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind, Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost: And so in case a poor man steal an Ox, and not able to pay five Oxen for one, yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen, the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied; and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with money, Numb. 18. 15, 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned, that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and he Mediator from Eternity, and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb, Money is recompensed by the feet; and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect; and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God. There is a twofold payment of debt, saith Mr. Ball, one of the things altogether the same in the obligation; and this, ipse facto, freeth from punishment, whether it be paid by the Debtor himself, or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the: obligation, so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it, which is called Remission; in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction; and of this kind, saith he, is the satisfaction of Christ. Now if Mr. Nortons' meaning be, that except Christ did satisfy the punishment due to the Elect in kind, the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied, than I deny the major; for the Law may be satisfied, though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind. 1 It cannot be in kind, according to the first Covenant made with Adam, as I have showed often. 2 It is evident, that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity, according to the Council of their own will, which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall, as I have opened it in some measure. Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick A●imad. gives this exposition of Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will, by which Will we are sanctified, through the oblation of his body, etc. That Will (saith he) is the Stipulation (or Covenant) of the Father, about Christ's undertaking our cause upon himself, and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins: therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ, which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation; for this Christ did not make▪ satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant, but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity. Law set apart, he was not bound (saith he) by any other Law, to the oblation of himself. Hence it follows, that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity, than not by the first supreme Covenant, made with Adam. And to this very purpose also, doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak, as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined, which is this. If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law; then the Law is made void by the Gospel, and the Law and the Promises are contrary. But neither of these are so, Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore, etc. Reply, If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down, namely, by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind; Then I deny the consequence: For first, The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind; And Secondly, without any prejudice to the Law, as I have showed in my Reply to the former Argument, and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument. His sixth Argument examined, which is this. If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect; then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons. Reply, Niether of these is necessary; for the Gospel doth tell us of another price paid, and so consequently of satisfaction by that price (and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind) as in Isa. 53. 10. When he shall make, or set, his soul a trespass, i. e. a Trespass offering, as Ephes. 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood, his vital soul, as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68 His seventh Argument examined, which is this. If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin; then there can be no justification of a sinner, without his suffering the punishment due to sin, i. e. his passive obedience; There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience (whence we are accepted as righteous) this being in vain without that; if there be neither passive obedience, nor active, then there is no remission of sins, nor acceptation as Righteous, and consequently no justification. Reply. The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation; neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it. First (saith he) If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin, than there can be no remission. This is but humane language, the Scripture doth not say so; but that which the Scripture saith, is this, namely, That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, Heb. 9 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam, that the Devil must persecute Christ, and shed his blood by piercing Heb. 9 22. Esa. 53. 10. Gen. 3. 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal, and yet that the Seed of the Woman at the selfsame time should break the Devil's Headplot, by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials; and then having finished all that was written of him, he should set his soul a Trespass-offering, which he did, when he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and at that time he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost, by his own Priestly Power, and not by Satan's power. And without this combat with Satan, and without this shedding of blood, there is no Satisfaction, and so no Remission. But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be, and was, without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God. Though not without God's appointment and permission to Satan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman, to spoil his obedience if he could, in which conflict Christ had his Col. 2. 14, 15. Foot-soal pierced, but the Devil had his Headplot broken, Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience, or turning away back till he had spoilt the Headplot of Principalities and Powers by his obedient death on the Cross. The Apostle doth tell us, that we have Remission of sins by virtue of Christ's satisfaction, namely, by his bloody death and sacrifice, Heb. 9 15, 26, 28. Heb. 10. 10, 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell, in all the Scripture, though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense. The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation, and therefore it will fall of itself. His eight Argument examined, which is this: If justifying faith establish the Law, than Christ the object of faith, hath established, that is, fulfilled the Law, for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith. But justifying faith hath established the Law, Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith, hath fulfilled the Law. Reply. 1. If by this conclusion, Christ the object of faith, hath fulfilled the Law, he means no more but this, namely, that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it, than he proves no more than the Dialogue, and all good Christians do grant. But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law, by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse, which doubtless is the great thing that he aims at, than any ordinary Reader, may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much. This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand, except it be to fill up the number of Eight. But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism. 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition; for though the Text doth expressly say, That justifying faith doth establish the Law, yet it doth not thence follow, That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense. 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith; this also is another Paradox, for many Orthodox Divines do show how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects. Reply. 2. I say, that Mr. Nortons' exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing near the Apostles meaning. What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth; yet Dr. Willet (whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve) doth reject their exposition, and that upon this ground, because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law, by the members of Christ, and not by Christ the Head alone. And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth, [We] sairh he, make it firm and effectual. But Calvin renders the text thus [It is] established and confirmed: And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text, refuting the Antinomians. Mr. Burges saith, It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In Vindiciae legis lect. 21. p. 209. or strengthening a pillar that is ready to fall. Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator, namely, that to establish is to confirm, in opposition to abrogate or disannul. And truly, seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former; it follows, that to establish the Law, must not be expounded to fulfil the Law, as Mr. Norton doth carry it, for saith he, Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law. But because four of Mr. Nortons' eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text, and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresy against the Dialogue, Therefore I will labour to show the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it. 1 I entreat the Judicious Reader to take notice, That the Question betwixt us, is not, whether faith doth establish the Law, or no, for the Text itself doth affirm it. But the point in difference is, In what sense doth faith establish the Law: Mr. Norton saith, That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments. But in that sense I deny it. Neither will I tyre out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned, but pitch upon such as I believe are foundest. 1 Take notice, that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously show how the Law is established, several ways, and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law; he comes nothing near to Mr. Nortons' sense. 2 Aretius shows, how the Law is established three ways by faith, and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christ's suffering of the essential curse. 3 Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius, shows, that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons. peccatoris, part. 2. l. ●. c 5 n. 7. p. 120. etc. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice, which is in very deed the proper end of the Law; and for this sense, he produceth the Testimony of Augustine, Anselm, and Primasius. 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox, who In Vindiciae legis lect. 21. ult in p. 120, 121. show how the Law is established by faith; But he rejects Mr. Nortons' way of establishing (as Dr. Willet did) and concludes with the judgement of Austin, that the Law is established, because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfil the Law; and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton; and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this, That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law. 5 Mr. Blake saith thus, Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Faederis p. 50. would be charged upon him, as it was upon Christ (namely, that he came to destroy the Law, Mat. 5. 17, 18.) saith, Do we make void the Law through faith? yea we establish the Law, Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation, and no abolition of it; and in other words he proceeds to show, that faith doth establish the Law as it is the Rule of sanctified walking. 6 Saith Mr. Ball, The Apostle doth not perpetually and absolutely Ball on the Coven. p. 115. oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace; for he teacheth expressly, that Faith establisheth the Law, Rom. 3. 31. for (saith he) the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith; But because the Jews, addicted to the letter of the Law, did pretermit the force and life of it, Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith, to be the cause, not of life, but of death, etc. 7 Tindal saith, Faith only justifieth, maketh righteous, and In tindal's works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law; for it bringeth the Spirit through Christ's deservings, The Spirit bringeth lust, looseth the heart, maketh him free, and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love, even as the Law requireth; then at last, out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord, and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law, his speech sounded as though he would break and disannul the Law through Faith; But to that he answereth, We destroy not the Law though Faith, but maintain, further, and establish the Law, that is to say, we fulfil the Law through Faith, Rom. 3. 31. and this Exposition he gives also in fol. 46. and in other places. 8 Dr. Barns doth thus dispute with the Popish Bishops, Then (saith he) came your overth wart Fathers and said to Paul, thou Dr. Barns printed with tindal's works. fol. 238. destroyest the Law, and teachest that it justifieth not: God forbidden (saith Paul) we teach that the very way to fulfil the Law is Faith, and without which all the works of the Law be but sin. I could add more Orthodox writers to this sense, but because these that I have cited are no Babes in Divinity, therefore I believe they will satisfy the judicious Reader, of the true sense, and that Mr. Nortons' Exposition is a forced and erroneous Exposition. From all the premises therefore, I may well conclude, That Mr. Norton hath not, nor cannot infer a concluding Argument from Rom. 3. 31. to prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the essential punishment of the curse; and therefore his groundwork of censuring the Dialogue of Heresy from this text, may justly be returned upon his own head. And now let the Judicious Reader judge betwixt us. CHAP. IX. His Answer to the point of Christ's satisfaction, as it is stated in the Dialogue, Examined. The sum of his Answer is drawn up into this Argument, in p. 17. and it may be called his ninth Argument. Such meritorious Mediatorly obedience, as indebteth God in point of justice to remit th● just punishment of sin, without any violation of justice; nay, with the establishment of justice, must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice, as includes a suffering of justice. But the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ is such a meritorious medatorly obedience, whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin, 1 Joh. 1. 9 without the violation of Justice, Rom. 3. 26. Yea, with the establishing of Justice. Therefore the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such away of satisfaction unto Justice, as includes also a suffering of Justice. Reply IF I had met with this Argument in another Book, wherein I had not been concerned, I should have thought it but a silly Argument, for neither the major, minor, nor Conclusion, are without their faults. 1 The Conclusion is faulty, because it comes not up in terminis to what should be concluded and proved. For the point of difference, as it is stated by Mr. Norton but five lines before this Syllogism, speaks thus, You know, that we affirm and defend, that Christ suffered the wrath of God, and that in a way of satisfaction unto divine Justice: But in this Conclusion of his Syllogism, there is never a word of Christ's suffering the wrath of God. But had he made his Conclusion so, yet the Scriptures cited in the minor will not bear up such a Conclusion. 2 His major is unsound; for God may be indebted by the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ, in point of justice, The ground of satisfaction to God's Justice ariseth from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant. to rem●t the just punishment of sin, without any violation of Justice, nay, with the establishing of Justice, and yet there is no necessity it should be done in such a way of satisfaction unto Justice, as includes such a suffering of Justice, as must be executed upon him from the vindicative wrath of God, as he affirms from Gen. 2. 17. And the reason is so plain, that he that runs may read it: Namely, because the ground of satisfaction to Justice ariseth not from the sufferings themselves, as they were threatened to the sinner for his disobedience to the first Covenant, but from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant, wherein all the Trinity were equally Covenanters, and all the Articles of that Covenant were positive Laws, unto which as a voluntary Mediator he yielded obedience, as I have showed in chap. 2. The Father propounded his Terms to the second person, and the second person covenanted to do what he thought fit to accept and perform, and the performance of that was accepted by the Father, as fully satisfactory to his justice, as payment in kind could have been He that doth voluntarily undertake to perform a combat Obedience performed to the Articles of a voluntary Covenant doth merit the prize. with his opposite Champion, in order to the voluntary Laws and Covenants that were made for the trial of Masteries; if he did strive and overcome his opposite Champion, according to those Laws, did merit the prize, by virtue of that free Covenant, and free performance; suppose it were for the redemption of Captives that he had deserved death; Justice according to Covenant was as fully satisfied by this performance, as if the Delinquent, or the voluntary Surety in his place, had suffered full punishment in kind. Again take another instance of a voluntary Covenant; a Pepper corn paid by a Tenant to his Landlord, according to the conditions of a voluntary Covenant, is current pay and satisfaction also, though not under the notion of a valuable consideration, yet under the notion of a voluntary bargain and Covenant, mutually agreed to by both parties. These instances show that the ground of satisfaction to justice may arise as well from the voluntary cause as from the order of natural causes. I hope none is so weak as to think, that by this last instance, I value Christ's satisfaction to a pepper corn, for his death and sacrifice was of infinite value in itself, because it proceeded from his person that was infinite: But it was therefore satisfactory, because it was made satisfactory by the conditions of a voluntary Covenant; and indeed, nothing of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price, until it be mutually agreed on between the person offended, and the person offering to make satisfaction. Ahab was a person of dignity, and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard; for he offered as much 1 King. 21. ●. for it as it was worth, or as good a Vineyard in the place of it; but neither this eminent person, nor this valuable consideration, could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard; because Naboth did not, nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price, as I have showed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so, had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person, and of the death, and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption, it had not been a price; but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it, therefore it is now the only full price of satisfaction to God's Justice. But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant, The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant, betwixt Mr. Norton and myself. for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father, and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works, and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse, for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant, as our Surety (as his first Proposition speaks;) and hence he makes all Christ's sufferings to be inflicted upon him from God's vindicative Justice, as from the supreme Lawgiver and Judge; because Christ was our Surety, and so a sinner by God's impuration; and so he makes the Rule of God's proceed in justice against Christ, to be legal, according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents, and therefore he makes all Christ's obedience, both in his incarnation, life, and death, to be all legal, and to be all grounded on the moral Law. But in Cap. 2. I have showed not only sufficient Reasons, but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines, that I believe will sufficiently satisfy a judicious Reader, that the whole order of Christ's satisfaction is from the voluntary cause, and from other conditions in the voluntary cause, and that the voluntary cause is never overruled by a supreme compulsory power, as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply. It is true, saith a learned Divine, That Christ merited, as well as satisfied for us; but (saith he) that by which he merited was not his never sinning, or perfect obedience (for that was due to the Law under which he was born) but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death, without any obligation to that duty lying upon him, as man, so to do, according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the Cross; which (obedience) is there set as the foundation of his merit (wherefore God hath highly exalted him.) But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience, or fulfilling the Law, as being so imputed to us: But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience, from his humane legal obedience, See more in chap. 3. I have also, I think, sufficiently showed, that nothing (though never so excellent in itself) can be called a price, till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract, and therefore when the blood & death of Christ is called the price of our redemption, even before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. 1. 19, 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience, that it was formally made to be the full price of our redemption, by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid. 3 His Minor is also faulty, as it is to be understood in his sense; but let others of a differing judgement, take this sentence of his [in point of Justice] in their sense, and then such persons, will not stumble at the minor; But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant, in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied, and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it, must be showed to be corruptly cited. And therefore for the better clearing of the truth, I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures. First, That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the balance of the Sanctuary, and found too light in his sense, in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter. Secondly, As for that in 1 Joh. 1. 9 If we confess our sins, he is 1 Joh. 1. 9 just to forgive us our sins. Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them, because the Text in terminis doth affirm it. But the great matter of the dispute is, in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them. Mr. Norton saith, That God is just in forgiving, because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatened to Adam in the word Death, in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely, that full satisfaction in kind, and free forgiveness, cannot possibly stand together, because they are contrary to each other. But because the blessed Trinity, in their voluntary Covenant, did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Atonement or Reconciliation to such sinners, the Holy Ghost for Christ's satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith (as the conditional promises in the New Covenant do testify) Therefore God cannot but show himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ, by forgiving the sins of such sinners, and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness. And thus God is just, both according to his Covenant with Christ, and also according to his new Covenant to believing sinners, revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ. And this was clearly typified in the Law, by the practice of confession of sin, and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Atonements, in Leu. 1. 4. and 4. 29. etc. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue, p. 32, 33, 35, 36, and 155, and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of God's Justice whereby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of believers, is his voluntary Covenant with Christ, namely, that upon his undertaking to perform the Combat with Satan, without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combat, and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice, than he would be reconciled, and forgive the sins of such sinners as did believe their Atonement thus procured through Christ's death and sacrifice, as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in Chap. 2. And this forgiveness (both as it relates to his Covenant with Christ, and to his new Covenant with the Elect) is called God's Righteousness in Rom. 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. for God must needs be as just and righteous when he performs his Covenant of Forgiveness made first to Christ in reference to his satisfaction, and so made also to all the members of his new Covenant, As when he doth execute his vindicative threaten upon the impenitent; and therefore such poor humble sinners may by faith call upon God to make them partakers of his Righteousness, namely of his gracious forgiveness. This Exposition, How God is just, hath a more firm foundation in this Text of 1 Joh. 1. 9 than Mr. Nortons' Exposition hath. The Examination of Rom. 3. 26. To declare at this time his Righteousness (or his Justice) That Rom. 3 26. he might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. This Text Mr. Norton doth put both in the Frontispiece, and also in the conclusion of his book, and he doth repeat it sundry other times also in his book, as the mirror of his Tenent, as in page 4. 17. 40. 55. 213. 246. etc. and he thinks that the very words of the Text do plainly confirm his sense, because he hath bestowed but little pains in his Exposition. Mr. Norton makes God to be just in this Text, because he exacted such a full satisfaction from Christ our Surety materially as he hath threatened to sinners in the moral Law, and therefore he makes the Incarnation and the Death of Christ, and all his sufferings, to be in obedience to the moral Law, which he calls the inviolable rule of God's Relative Justice. Reply. I on the contrary do therefore make God to be called Just in this Text, because he declared his Righteousness in forgiving believing sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christ, which he performed according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant, as it was determined in God's secret will, and revealed only in his voluntary positive Laws (and not in his moral Law) for his positive Laws do often differ, yea they are often contrary to his moral Law. And in my Reply to his fifth and sixth Propositions in Chap. 2. and elsewhere, I have showed, that God's secret will declared only in his positive Laws (and not in his moral Law) is the inviolable Rule of his Relative Justice. 2 It is acknowledged by many judicious, that there passed a voluntary Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity, for man's Redemption, and that God did first declare this counsel of his Will in Gen. 3. 15. namely, that he would put an utter Gen. 3. 15. enmity between the Devil in the Serpent, and the seed of the deceived Woman, and that the Devil should have full liberty to deceive this seed of the woman, and to pervert his obedience, if he could, by fraud, as he had done Adam, or by force, in putting him to an ignominious violent death on the Cross by piercing him in the Footsoals; but God declared also, that this seed of the Woman should not be deceived, but that he should break the Devil's Headplot by continuing constant in his obedience to the death, and that he should make his soul a sacrifice in the midst of his Tortures on the Cross, which doubtless was exemplified The ground of full and just satisfaction to God's justice is not by paying our full debt materially, burr formally, that God doth accept for full and just satisfaction, which was constituted so to be by the conditions of the voluntary Covenant. to Adam by the death and sacrifice of a Lamb (as I have showed elsewhere) as full satisfaction to God's Justice, and as the procuring cause of God's Reconciliation to all that should believe in this Promised seed; for what else can be called full satisfaction, but that only that is so made by the voluntary Covenant? for the half shekels in Exod. 30 12. was called the price of the Redemption of their lives; but any man may see by Psal. 49. 8. that materially it was not a full price, until it was made to be the full price formally only by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant. Of this see more in Chap. 14. Sect. at Reply 8. 3 The performance of the said Combat and Sacrifice on Christ's part is in Scripture phrase, called, The Righteousness of Christ, and the meritorious nature of it was to bind God the Father to perform his Covenant on his part, which was, that he should be attoned and reconciled to believing sinners, by forgiving their sins, and receiving them into favour, and the performance of this on God the Father's part is often in Scripture-phrase called the Righteousness of God (as I have showed in 2 Cor. 5. 21.) That so he might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. But for the better understanding of this 26. verse, I will propound, and answer these two Queries. 1 How God declared his Justice at this time. 2 Why at this time. 1 Touching the manner how God declared his Justice, that must be fetched from its coherence with verse 25. and there it Rom. 3. 25. is said, that God declared his justice in setting forth Christ to be a propitiatory, through faith in his blood, for the remission of sins. 1 Hence it is evident, that God had covenanted to, and with Christ, that if he would undertake to be the seed of the Woman, and in that humane nature to combat with the Enemy, Satan, to the shedding of his blood, and would still continue obedient to the death, and at last make his soul a sacrifice, than he should be his Mercy-seat, and then he would be reconciled to all believers, and forgive them their sins, through faith in his blood; and therefore as soon as sinners are united to Christ by faith, It is God's Justice or his Righteousness to remit their sins that are past, as I shown before in 1 Joh. 1. 9 and more fully in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Heb. 8. 12. 2 This very name His Propitiatory, whence God declares Christ is God's Mercy-seat in point of satisfaction. Heb. 4. 16. his Justice in remitting sins, doth plainly tell us, (but that we are dull of hearing) that Christ's satisfaction was not Solutio ejusdem, but tantidem, by virtue of the voluntary Covenant, or else what need is there that God should declare his justice from his Propitiatory, or from his Mercy-seat, or from his Throne of grace? as Christ by his Satisfaction is called in Heb. 4. 16. if Christ's satisfaction had been solutio ejusdem, as Mr. Norton holds, than it should have been more fitly said that God declared his justice from his Justice-seat, and not from his Mercy-seat; but because Christ's death and sacrifice was (by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant) made to be the Tantidem for believers, as it is evident by the former instance of the half shekels, which was made to be the full price of the Redemption of their lives, formally only, by God's voluntary Covenant, therefore it is most fitly said, that God declared his justice from his Mercy-seat. 3 This phrase (Caporeth) his Propitiatory, or his Mercy-seat, is first used in Exod. 25. 17. And it is commonly used, saith Ainsworth, to set forth God's merciful covering of sins, as in Psal. 65. 4. where it is translated by the Seventy, with the allowance Psal. 65. 4. of the Holy Ghost, in Heb. 9 5. Hilasterion, that is, a Propitiatory, or a Covering Mercy-seat; and saith he, this is applied by the Apostle to Christ, Rom. 3. 25. See more of Caphar in Chap. 14. Sect. 6. Reply 8. The Hebrew Caphar, saith Ainsworth, is applied to the covering of an angry countenance, as in Gen. 32. 20. There Jacob is Gen. 32. 20. said to cover Esau's angry face, or to appease his anger, by a liberal and acceptable gift; and this word Caphar, saith Ainsworth, is often used in the Law, for the covering or taking away Christ's sacrifice is called a sacrifice of Atonement, because it doth appease God's angry face, & procure his Atonement to believing sinners. of offence, by pacifying God's anger, by gifts and sacrifices, and typified that Christ should give himself to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement whereby sin is covered, or passed by, Exod. 29. 36. Leu. 1. 4. Leu. 4. 20. 26. etc. And thus God's angry face was covered, or appeased, by the offering of Christ's body, as soon as he had finished all his sufferings; for he offered himself by the holy fire of his eternal Spirit (so Dr. Taylor doth once make the type of Fire to speak in Noah's sacrifice) in Heb. 9 14. for as the Altar did signify the Heb. 9 14. Godhead of Christ, so the fire of the Altar must be alike type of the Godhead of Christ also; and thus Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament through this kind of death, Heb. 9 14, 15, 16. by which he procured God's Atonement or Reconciliation for the iniquity of the many, and so he became his Mercy-seat; and after this manner God set forth Christ to be his Propitiatory through faith in his blood, to declare his Righteousness by remitting sins. 4 Peter Martyr doth open this phrase His Righteousness (or the justice of God) in Rom. 3. 21. thus, If a man do more narrowly consider this word, the Justice or Righteousness of God, It is the mercy of God which he bestoweth upon us through Christ. And in Rom. 10. 3. He calls the justice of God, God's forgiveness; and saith he, I have in another place admonished, Rom. 10. 3. that the Hebrew word Tzedec, which our men have translated Righteousness, signifieth rather Goodness and Mercy; and therefore to this day the Jews call Alms by that name; and saith he, Ambrose on this place is of the selfsame mind; and see more how Peter Martyr doth expound God's Righteousness, in my Reply on 2 Cor. 5. 21. 5 I have also showed in the Dialogue, page 118. that Tzedec, Justice or Righteousness, is often translated by the Seventy, Goodness or Mercy, as in Psal. 24. 5. Ps. 33. 5. Ps. 103. 6. Es. 1. 27 Dan. 4. 27. Dan. 9 16. Deut. 24. 13. and their Translation doth well agree to the true sense of Ps 112. 4. 9 and to Ps. 94. 15. where God is said to turn Judgement into justice, namely to Psal. 94. 15. turn vindicative justice, into merciful justice; for indeed God hath as exact a way of merciful justice by the satisfaction of Christ, according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant to believers, as if the rigour of his moral Curse had been executed on their Surety in kind, and better too, because the first way was constituted to be the way, and the other is but imaginary, according to the legal proceed of Court justice. And indeed, the Justice or Righteousness of God the Father, wherein he is just, according to his Covenant with Christ, to forgive them their sins that do believe in the death and sacrifice of Christ, is an example of the highest degree of Mercy, Charity, and Alms, that the world can afford. 6 God is said to judge the world in Justice, namely, in his merciful justice, Psal. 96. 13. Psal. 98. 9 Psal. 68 5. Psal. 146. 7, 8. And it is said in Act. 17. 31. That God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in Righteousness (some understand it of God's vindicative justice on the impenitent at the day of Judgement) but Broughton reads it in Mercy, or in merciful justice namely, by his Gospel of grace, declaring his merciful justice in judging the world by it; for by his Gospel of grace, he doth judge the world in favour to their poor, blind, and captivated souls, as in Esa 42. 1, 2 3 4. and in Mat. 12 18. and in Joh. 12. 31. and Obad. vers. 21. and see Broughton also in Job 37. 23. By these, and such like particulars, we may see how God was just according to his Covenant with Christ, to declare his righteousness by forgiving the sins of believers for his sake; and from that Covenant with Christ, he hath also Covenanted with the Elect, mercifully to forgive their iniquities, and to remember their sins no more, Jer. 31. 34. which is expounded ●hus in Heb. 8. 13. I will be pacified or reconciled to their unrighteousness; and this is called God the Father's righteousness, whereby he makes a sinner righteous. Secondly, I come now to answer the second Question, Why did God declare his Justice or his Righteousness at this ●in●? The answer is, that he might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. God declared the exact time when he would fulfil his Promise The end of God's merciful justic● declared from his Mercy-seat in Christ's satisfaction, was, that he might be just, and that he might be the justifier of believing sinners. Dan. 9 24. Gal. 4. 4, 5. and Covenant, by his Angel Gabriel to Daniel; namely, that from his prayer, to the death of the Messiah, it should be exactly Four hundred and ninety years, and that then the Messiah by his death and sacrifice should end all legal sin-offerings, and finish all trespass-offerings, and make reconciliation for iniquity, and (so by that means) bring in (or procure) an eternal Righteousness, or an eternal Reconciliation, instead of their typical Righteousness; for, by the language of the Law we are taught, that a sinner's righteousness doth consist in God's reconciliation, or in God's forgiveness, and receiving into favour, Dan. 9 24. and in relation to this Paul saith, That when the fullness of the time (spoken of by Daniel) was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law (namely, under the Law of Rites, that he by his death might fulfil those typical Rites) to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons: So then, as Christ was just in making satisfaction according to Covenant in the exact time foretold for man's redemption; so God upon that performance covenanted to declare his Justice at this time to all believers in all the Nations of the world, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, by forgiving their sins, and not remembering their iniquities, Heb. 8. 12. See Ains. also in Psal. 25. 11. and therefore Christ did now send abroad his Apostles, to beseech men to be reconciled to God, 2 Cor. 5. 20. Secondly, I find that Dr. Hamon (and others) doth thus paraphrase upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just, in Mat. 1. 19 Joseph being a just man, that is (saith he) being a merciful pious man, was not willing to expose or subject Mary to the public and shameful punishment, which among the Jews belonged to those women, whom the Husbands, when they first came to them, found not to be Virgins, was willing secretly to dismiss her, that she not being known to be betrothed to him, might only be liable to the punishment of Fornication, viz. infamy, not death. And in his Annotations, he saith thus, The word Just, in Greek, is answerable to the Hebrew, and signifies ordinarily works of Mercy and Charity; of which when Maymonides sets down seven sorts or degrees, the seventh is distinctly Righteousness or Justice, and so Justice, in Deut. 24. 13. both according to the context, and the 70 is Mercy. So when Rabbins say, There are two Thrones, the one of Judgement, and the other of Mercy; the latter is so styled by the Author to the Hebrews, Chap. 4. 16. and so Psal. 112. 9 he hath given to the poor, and his righteousness, i. e. his bounty to the poor, So Isa. 58. 7, 8. and Mat. 6. 1. where the vulgar reading is justitiam, and that for alms in that place. Proportionable to these acceptions of the word (saith he) the righteousness of Joseph shall here signify, not strict legal Justice, but peculiarly Goodness and Clemency, in not bringing Mary to the capital punishment of stoning, for her being with child, according to the Law, in Deut. 22. but he thought to put her away privately, and so to keep the betrothing private, that so she might suffer no more but infamy for Fornication. In this point of clemency, is joseph's justice commendable. But on Rom. 3. 26. he saith thus, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just, signifieth, one that is merciful or charitable, as hath been showed on Mat. 1. 19 and accordingly, it may be observed, that the word, seldom, in these books of the New Testament, if ever, belongs, or is applied, to the act of vindicative Justice; But as there, in the case of Joseph (who would not offer his wife to legal punishment, and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, righteous) for the abating of the rigour of exact Law, and bringing in moderation or equity, or mercy instead of it. Accordingly (saith he) it is here to be resolved, That this phrase being used of God [That God may be just or righteous] it must be understood to denote his mercy, and goodness, and clemency in pardoning and forgiving sins; that being the thing looked on in the many foregoing expressions, as our being justified freely by his grace, in ver. 24. The propitiatory, ver. 25. God's righteousness, i. e. his merciful dealing with men under the second Covenant, Verse 25, 26. the remission of sins, and forbearance, Verse 25. And (saith he) the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just (or righteous) being so commonly taken in the notion of mercifulness, and so seldom in this of vindicative Justice, there is no reason to interpret it thus in this place. Though this of Dr. Hamon do not fully accord to my former interpretation of God's righteousness, yet his reasons are very solid to show that God's Justice here is not to be taken as Mr. Norton doth, for vindicative Justice. Fourthly, It is observable, that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just, is often put for one that is pious and merciful, So the 70 put one that is pious, for Tzedec, justice, in Isa. 24. 16. and so also the Hebrew word Chesed, mercy, is put for one that is pious and just, and therefore the Seventy do often render it Justice, as in Gen. 19 19 Gen. 20. 13. & 21. 23. & 24. 27. and in 49, see Ains, & 32. 10. & Exod. 15. 13. & 34. 7. & Prov. 20. 28. & Isa. 63. 7. And the reason is plain, because Justice moderated is Mercy. And to this purpose also do our larger Annotations speak, on Psal. 22. 31. And saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant, p. 21. The demonstration of God's revenging Justice, springeth not from the necessity of his nature, but from his voluntary disposition. By these particulars, I believe, it will be evident to the Judicious, that none of all the three Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his Assumption, do prove it; namely, that Christ did satisfy God's Justice, by suffering his vindicative Justice. And therefore the point of satisfaction, as it is stated in the Dialogue, is sound and good still, notwithstanding all that Mr. Norton hath said, or can say against it. SECT. 2. Mr. Nortons' Answer to the several Scriptures cited by the Dialogue, to prove the question stated, [Examined.] THe Dialogue saith thus, in p. 2. Though I say, that Christ did not suffer his Father's wrath, neither in whole or in part, yet I affirm, that he suffered all things, in all circumstances, just according to the Predictions of all the Prophets, even to the nodding of the head, and the spitting in the face; as these Scriptures do testify. 1. Peter told the Jews, That they had killed the Prince of life, as God before had showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer, and he fulfilled it, So Act. 3. 17, 18. Mr. Norton doth Answer thus. This may include (saith he) but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God. Reply 1. He should have showed, that this Scripture did certainly include, that Christ did suffer from God's wrath; especially seeing it i● cited for a proof of the Question stated; but I have often showed, that God hath showed from all his Prophets, from Gen. 3. 15. that God appointed Satan to set all his Instruments on work to persecute Christ, and to pierce him in the footsoals, with an ignominious and painful death, as a Malefactor, on the Cross, to try if he could pervert him in the course of his obedience, and so to hinder Christ's death from being a perfect sacrifice, by which means only the Devil's headplot must be broken. The second Scripture cited in the Dialogue, is in Mat. 16. 21. Christ told his Disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders, and Chief Priests, and Scribes, and be killed, and raised again the third day. Mr. Norton Answers thus: True: Yet, saith he, Matthew doth not there show that he must not suffer the wrath of God. Reply 2. If Matthew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached, he would doubtless (if the Spirit of God had permitted) have showed, that he must not have suffered the wrath of God; but it had been for Mr. Nortons' honour, if he could have showed, that Christ told his Disciples, That he must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God, as well as from Satan's instruments, and then the Reader might have been satisfied. The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24, 25, 26, 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers. These words (saith he) conclude that Christ was to suffer: But the word All, saith he, in vers. 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice. Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice; but now in Luke 24. 26. he finds it in the word All, and yet there is no All in that verse. Mr. Norton will rather coin Scripture-words, than want a proof of Christ's suffering from God's immediate wrath. The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27, 28. He Answers thus: The word All in this Text (saith he) is to be taken in a limited sense, for all things that were written of him, to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews, as the instruments thereof. Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue, and in so doing, he justifies the sense of the Dialogue. Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case. And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer, than an Answer to satisfy any judicious Reader. CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons' Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. (in page 21.) For the true understanding whereof, saith Mr. Norton, consider these three things; 1 What is here intended by Death, 2 The Distribution of Death, 3 The Application of that Distribution. SECT. I. 1 Saith he, The Commination, Thou shalt surely die, is not particular concerning some kind of death, but indefinite, therefore equivalent to an universal, comprehending all kinds of Death. Reply 1. I Have showed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatened, is limited to a spiritual death in sin only. 2 In his Distribution. And 3 In his Application of this Death, he brings Christ within the compass of it two ways: 1 By separation of his soul from his body, which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ. 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise, and the presence of the evil things in the commination, which he calls Total, Temporal, and properly Penal in Christ. Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ, namely, the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death, because God's Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves. In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body, was a proper penal death; for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death, nor yet with any other true curse, but sinners themselves. Sin and Death (saith Peter Martyr) is compared as cause and effect; But (saith he) here we must exempt Christ only, who notwithstanding he knew no sin, yet for our sakes he died; But (saith he) Death had no dominion over him, because he of his own accord, did suffer it for our salvation. The like speech of his, I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ died voluntarily, saith Bernard (ad milites Templi, cap. 11.) that death had not been meritorious; how much more unworthily he died who deserved not death, so much more justly (man) liveth for whom he died; what justice, thou wilt ask, is this, that an innocent should die for a malefactor? It is no justice, it is mercy; If it were justice, than should he not die freely, but indebted thereto, and if indebted, then indeed he should die, but the other for whom he died, should not live; yet though it be not justice, it is not against justice, otherwise he could not be both just and merciful. These Testimonies of the Orthodox (and more to this purpose I might bring) do point-blank oppose Mr. norton's Tenent, that Christ's death was inflicted on him from God's penal justice, through the meritorious cause of sin, as our death is on us. But it is no such matter, Christ's death is of another nature, The true nature of Christ's death was to be a sacrifice. because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only, upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satan's Headplot, and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby; and in this respect his obedience, in giving his life, was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift, and as the richest Present that the world could afford; namely, as a sacrifice of Atonement or Reconciliation, smelling like a most sweet savour in the nostrils of God; and in this respect his death is the ground of merit; but had it been inflicted on him from God's penal wrath, as deserved, through the imputation of sin, it had merited nothing, as Bernard speaks above. When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize, he that will strive for the mastery, with his opposite Champion, for the winning of the said Prize, must strive lawfully, that is to say, in obedience to those Laws; and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withal from his opposite Champion; it may be, to the forcing of his body into an Agony, it may be, to the breaking of his body, and to the shedding of much blood; all this he must do from the voluntary cause & from the voluntary Covenant; for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services, neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments, though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience, and to provoke him to some miscarriage, against the Laws of the prize, that so he may not win the prize from him: Even so Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our Faith, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down (as a Victor over Satan, and all his potent Instruments) at the right hand of God, having first endured the cross, and the contradiction of sinners; and hath spoilt Principalities and Powers in it, namely, in his death on the cross, which by God's appointment did strive for the mastery with him, and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could, to spoil his obedience, and so to hinder him from destroying his headplot, and so from winning the prize, namely, from the salvation of the Elect; and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage, that he pierced him in the footsoals for a wicked Malefactor. These things I bring to exemplify my meaning, that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God, as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution: But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant, having A description of Christ's merit. respect unto the curse accidentally; because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner, and so to use him as a Malefactor, by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death, and so to disturb his patience if he could: but because Christ continued constant in his obedience, therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect, from the curse of the Law. And this is a true description of merit, whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ. But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from God's penal curse, as an effect from the cause (as Mr. Norton affirms) doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice, as Bernard said above, and as you may see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 1●. 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 Adam's conversion, for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatened 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 showing, 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 Christ's 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 Satan's power, as I shall show, 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 evil 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 only 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 Adam's 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 Adam's 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 Adam's 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 Controversy would be much easier: And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatened 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 man's 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 intent dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety, for than 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 dies. 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 syllogism, 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 said know, why this reservation of God's purpose is mentioned; It seems, it is for this purpose, to hook in Christ was not 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, than 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 Adam's 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) than it speaks only of the desert of Adam's 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 threatened, 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 forefathers; 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 Adam's obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature, yet in that sense it is not a complete Rule of relative Justice could not contain a complete rule of God's relative Justice (yea though it be granted, that it was made in relation to Adam's 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 comprised 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 threatened, in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit. Or thus, both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adam's sin, and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin, Rom. 3. 19, 20. therefore the 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, than it speaks of the desert, rather than of the event, of Adam's sin in relation to the Elect. SECT. 3. THis Text (saith the Dialogue) doth not comprehend Jesus Gen: 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ within 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 show 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 baptised shall be saved, he that believeth not is damned. Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleled 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 missed it. But to speak more fully, the word Gospel must be considered two ways. First, Either strictly, for the glad tidings of salvation only. 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 threatening 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 compass of the Covenant of works, yet that he was contained within the compass 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 compass 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 compass 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 his eating prohibited; the typical Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ, lies only in some general things, as thus; Adam was the head of that Covenant, which God made with him concerning the nature of all mankind, and so Christ was the head of the Covenant of grace, which God made with him concerning the Regenerating of the nature of all the Elect; Adam by his disobedience merited a corrupt nature to all his posterity, and Christ by his obedience even to death, merited a sanctified nature to all his elect seed. The Reader may fetch the parallel from P. Martyr, Dr. Willet, and others, on Rom. 5. 19 Rom. 5. 19 But what is the inference that Mr. Norton makes? namely, That Christ is contained within the compass of this Text. I say, it follows not; for though there may be a resemblance between the first and second Adam in many other things, yet not in all things, and therefore in some things Adam was no figure of Christ: as for example, He was no figure of Christ in bearing the essential Curse. And that is the point which Mr. Norton doth aim at in this Text. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain (though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not) 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 in Gen. 2. 9 was a figure of Christ, who is called, and indeed is, the Tree of life, Rev. 22. 2. And, saith he, If Christ be not within the compass of the Text, the Text is not true. Reply. 4. We may soon lose ourselves in this dispute, if we keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand, which Mr. Norton labours to confute. The Dialogue saith, this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compass of it, as liable to the death there threatened: But Mr. Norton citys another text to prove it, namely Gen 2. 9 and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compass of this text of Gen. 2. 17. namely as the Surety of the Elect, and that thereby he was made liable to suffer the death there threatened; for saith he, Man sins, and man dies (by virtue of this Text) either in his own person, or in the Man Christ Jesus. But how doth all this that Mr. Norton hath said, suit to the point in hand? and how doth it tend to disprove what the Dialogue affirms? 1 Saith he, It is certain, that Christ was couched in this Text; but in his proof he only saith, It is very probable that the Tree of life, etc. in his Proposition he affirmeth, It is certain; but in his proof he saith, It is no more but probable. But let his words be a little further examined; Where is Christ couched? 1 One while he tells us, That he is couched, and intended in some part of the revealed will of God, during the first Covenant. 2 Another while he tells us, That it is probable that the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9 was a figure of Christ. 3 Another time he saith, That Christ must be within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. or else the Text is not true. All these three considerations laid together, do prove that Christ is contained somewhere, or no where, in some Text, or in no Text. And now let the judicious Reader judge what his Proposition, and his Proof doth amount to. 2 Examine his Discourse a little further; The Dialogue affirmeth, that Christ falls not within the compass of this Text in Gen. 2. 17. The Dialogue doth not meddle whether Christ was couched in any other Text. 2 The Dialogue denies that Christ was not within this text as liable to the death there threatened. Now then let it be supposed that Mr. Norton could produce some other text, during the first Covenant, wherein Christ was included or prefigured: Suppose the Tree of life was a figure of him, though it be denied both by Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Burges, and others, as I have noted in Chap. 2. yet except he can prove that Christ was comprehended in this text, and that he was thereby liable to the death there threatened, he doth but labour to no purpose. 3 Examine his arguing a little further: The Dialogue contends that Christ is not contained in the word Thou; Thou shalt surely die. Thou Adam in thine own person; and thou Adam in thy Posterity (saith the Dialogue) But not thou in thy Surety shalt die; The word Thou shalt die, intends no more but the person or persons with whom the first Covenant was made. But let us consider the Argument that doth arise from Mr. Nortons' own words; And it may be framed thus: Christ falls not within the compass of the first Covenant of works, saith Mr. Norton in page 24. But thou shalt die (intending thereby the persons with whom the first Covenant was made) falls within the compass of the first Covenant, as he affirmeth in his second Proposition. Therefore Christ falls not within the first Covenant of works, because the word Thou, intends the persons only with whom the first Covenant was made. And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself, by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the compass of Gen. 2. 17. SECT. iv IN my former brief Reply to his first Argument, I promised a more full Answer to his minor. I will repeat his whole Argument as it is laid down in his 10 page. Either Christ suffered the Justice of God, instead of the Elect, denounced against sin in Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispense with the execution thereof, without the violation of his Justice. But God could not dispense with the execution thereof, without the violation of his Justice. Reply 5. I have sufficiently replied to his major, by proving that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam in the first Covenant, in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and Chap. 6. etc. 2 I say also that his minor is unsound; for it affirms that God could not dispense with the execution of the essential Curse, without the violation of his Justice. What was sometimes spoken (saith he) of the Laws of the Medes and Persians, holds true at all times concerning the Law of God, that it altereth not. Reply 6. 1 Take the death threatened for a spiritual death in sin, and then we see by experience, that it was formally executed on all mankind, from that instant, to every one that hath life in the womb, even to the end of world, though yet it hath pleased God to mitigate the violent outrage of that death, not only to the Elect, but also to the Reprobate, while they live in this world. 2 Take the death there threatened for bodily death, and then we see by experience, that it was not formally executed at that present; neither shall it be formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement, We shall not all dye, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 3 Take the death there threatened for eternal death in hell, and then we also see by experience, that it was not formally executed God doth often dispense with h●s peremptory threaten. on Adam; but this is certain, that what God hath threatened against man for sin, he may justly inflict, but he is not always bound to it (except his threaten be delivered with an oath) Threaten declare what punishments are due to man for sin, but not what shall infallibly be inflicted, as I have showed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience, that God did often repent of his Threaten, and thereupon did alter them from what he had expressed in his revealed will; but not from what he had decreed in his secret will. As for example, God sent his Prophet Isaiah to Hezekiah, saying, Set thy house in order, for to die, thou shalt die, and not live. This threatening hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatening of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatening is delivered, first, Affirmatively, to die, Thou shalt die, that is, Thou shalt 2 King. 20. 1●. surely die. And secondly, It is delivered Negatively, Thou shalt not live. And yet Hezekiah did persuade himself that this threatening was alterable, and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer, that God would spare his life, and give him a son to sin upon his Throne, and God heard his prayer, and altered his threatening, and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence, more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence we see, that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will, and for the removal of threatened evils, 2 King. 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps. 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional, and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will, Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations, for our prayers, Gen. 19 21. Joh. 3. 10. Es. 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the child's life, after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should die, 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like, Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed he willeth not, only to prove us, Mat. 15. 23, 24, 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb. 14, 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death, yet the Apostle saith also, That we shall not all dye, 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God, we see, doth often alter his peremptory threaten. 2 Take another Instance, God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying, Thou art but a dead man, that is, saith Ainsworth, Thou shalt surely die. This threatening (saith Traheron on Rev. 4) seemeth to be as absolute a threatening as that to Adam; and yet indeed saith he, it had a secret condition, which is after expressed in verse 7. Restore her now to her husband, if thou restore her not (see the condition now expressed, which at first was reserved) know, thou shalt surely die: But take notice of this, that when God told Adam, If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge, thou shalt surely die; there could be no such condition on man's part to alter the sentence of death in sin, for till Christ was revealed, no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatening; neither is he tied to execute his threaten, except they be delivered with an oath. God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters, when they have threatened a child or servant, that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished; yet when the fault is committed, they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves, or the party offending, or to both, than if the punishment had been inflicted; then who can deny that liberty to God himself, who is a most absolute Supreme? 3 Take another Instance, Jonah said, Yet forty days, and Niniveh shall be destroyed, Jon. 3. 4. this threatening is absolute saith Traheron (not declaring Gods secret determination) what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them; yet upon their repentance God altered this threatening. 4 Take another Instance in Leu. 15. 31. Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, that in dying they die not in Leu. 15. 31. their uncleanness, when they defile my Tabernacle that is among them: This threatening God did sometimes execute, and sometimes he did not execute it, but did alter it at his pleasure, as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the days of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 30. 19, 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19, 20. of them were sick, and weak, and died, and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiah were healed, and restored to health: And so death is threatened in Num. 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation, lest they bear sin, and die, yet God dispensed with death to King Vzziah, and smote him with leprosy, and Saul died not, though God was angry with him for meddling with the office of sacrificing. But I entreat the judicious Reader, to take notice, that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. norton's Tenent in his Assumption, where he affirms, That God might not dispense with the execution of the essential death and curse, but that it must be born either by Adam, or else by Adam's Surety; In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase, In dying, Thou shalt die, is alterable, even to men that are not in Christ, upon their temporary repentance, as in Niniveh and Ahab. SECT. V But saith Mr. Norton, This threatening was in relation to the breach of the moral Law; for he makes Adam's sin in eating the forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law. Reply 7 I Have showed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adam's obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature, but in relation to a God's positive Laws were not engraven in Adam's nature, as his moral Law was. positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature, as the eating of the two Trees was; for God's positive Laws were not engraven in Adam's nature, but reserved in God's secret Decree to be imposed on man, for an act, or acts, for a time, as he pleased to appoint, and then to be annihilated again. I grant, that the moral Law of nature did direct Adam to obey God in whatsoever positives he should appoint: But yet by the Law of nature, he knew not any of God's positives, till they were particularly revealed; neither can man, without a special revelation, know the reason of them, because they depended only on the good pleasure of God, and therefore Adam's moral perfections could not prevent, but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of positives, as I have showed in Chap. 2. 2 I do not remember (and I pray let the Judicious consider it) that eternal death is directly threatened for the breach of any outward positive Law, but at the first death in sin, and ever after a bodily death (but eternal death is often directly threatened for Unbeleef and Rebellion against the Law of Grace) and therefore the threatening in Gen. 2. 17. may be exempted from that threatening, though not from death in sin. 3 Let it be supposed, that the first Covenant with Adam was made in relation to the moral Law (which is denied, and cannot be granted) yet it is evident, that God doth sometimes alter from See P Martyr in Com. pl. par. 1. pag 190. that Law; for he commanded Abraham to kill his only son, which was contrary to the sixth Commandment, and he commanded the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians of their goods, Exod. 11. 2. and Christ bid the Impotent man, when he was healed, to carry his bed on his back on the Sabbath day. These examples show, that God is not tied to his revealed moral Laws, as we are, but that he hath a supreme power to alter from that Rule to his secret Decree; but when God is God doth sometimes alter from the rule of his moral Commands, to his secret Decree. pleased to bind his promises or threaten by an oath, than we may be sure his will so revealed is unalterable, because his oath doth always declare what his secret Will and Decree is; And hence it comes to pass, that his word and command which he delivers to us for our rule, is many times alterable, because it is many times differing from his secret Decree. And hence it is, that when his threaten are annexed to his Laws, it is to show unto man what his sin deserves, but not what God will certainly execute; for it is his good pleasure sometimes to Relax his threatening, which is a forgiveness of temporal plagues, Psal. 78. 38. 2 Sam. 12. 13, 14. for as there are two sorts of punishments threatened, so there are two sorts of pardon, Psal. 78 38. one in relation to temporary, and the other in relation to eternal punishment, and so in like sort there are two sorts of justification. 4 This sentence (as it relates to eternal death) in Gen. 2. 17. In the Right way of dying well. saith Perkins, must be understood with an exception borrowed from the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, revealed to Adam presently after his fall: The exception goes thus, Thou shalt certainly die whensoever thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, except I give thee a deliverance from death, namely, the Seed of the woman to destroy the Devil's Headplot. And saith Vrsinus, after that sentence in Gen. 2. 17. there followed the equity, moderation, and lenity of the Gospel; in his Ans. to Q. 40. And saith Baxter, How can it stand with the truth and justice In his Aphors p. ●8. and in Append. p. 122. of God, to dispense with his threaten? he answers thus to this Question, When threaten are merely parts of the Law, and not also predictions of events, and discoveries of God's purpose thereabout, than they may be dispensed with without any breach of truth; and he gives two Instances to explain his meaning, the last of them runs thus; when God saith, Thou shalt die the death, the meaning is, Death shall be the due reward of thy sin, so that it may be inflicted at my pleasure, and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event: And he citys Vossius, concluding that the Law was not abrogated, but relaxed, dispensed with, and abrogate. And to this sense saith another learned Divine: The commination in Gen. 2. 17. is like to some other of God's threats against the Transgressor's of his Law; but it bindeth not God that he shall have power to release or mitigate, what, and to whom it pleaseth him. The Elect are called the children of wrath as well as others; De Recons. peccatoris, par. 1 c. 1. But saith Mr. Wotton, It may be answered, that the Holy Ghost in these, and such like places of Scripture doth signify what is due to sin, and sinners, and what their estate must needs be in their own apprehensions (if they will judge of themselves according to the light of true reason: for there is in sin a certain naughtiness for which it justly may be, and indeed is odious unto God) but it will not follow thereupon, that he ceaseth to love them, Whom he hath predestinate unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, Eph. 1. 5. All these Instances do evidence, that God's threaten in the event are often alterable, and therefore that his threatening of eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. (in case it be there threatened) is alterable, and doth not bind God, neither to leave the Elect under the power of their spiritual death in sin, nor yet to inflict eternal death, neither on the Elect, nor on their Surety; and therefore according to the liberty of his eternal will and purpose, he ordained that the conflict of Christ with Satan, in continuing obedient to the death of the Cross, and at last making his soul a sacrifice, should be a valuable consideration, whereon he would dispense with the rigour of his commination, and so let fall, or suspend, the penalty of eternal death, in case it had been the chief thing threatened in Gen. 2. 17. as most do hold, and therefore for their sakes I have cited these Instances, though still I think my first exposition of Gen. 2. 17. is sound and good, in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. CHAP. XI. SECT. I. The Examination of Isa. 53. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows. Mr. Jacob interprets these sorrows, of Hell sorrows, which Christ bore in our stead, or else we must have born them. THe Dialogue in pag. 15, 16. makes this answer, The Evangelist Matthew hath expounded this Text to a quite contrary sense, Matth. 8. 17. Matthew saith this Text of Isaiah was fulfilled, when Christ took away our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses, from such as were infirm and sick; Not as a Porter bears a burden, by laying them upon his own body, but by bearing them from the sick by his divine power. Mr. Norton in page 35. doth answer to the Dialogue thus: The Prophet in this Text, by griefs and sorrows, intends sufferings due to us, as it is plain (saith he) from the scope of the Chapter, and the comparing of the fourth and fifth verses, with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and by bearing those griefs and sorrows, be intends Christ's bearing them in our stead, etc. Reply 1. He makes the Reader believe, that the scope of this Chapter doth speak to this one point, namely, That Christ did Christ carried our sorrows & sicknesses away by his Divine power. bear such griefs and sorrows as are due to us, which in other places he calls the Essential torments of Hell, and thence he infers that this speech in verse 4. He hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows, doth intent so much; but a judicious Reader may easily see that the scope of this Chapter is to set out the operations of the divine nature, as well as of the humane, and of several other things that belong both to the Person and Office of Christ; and therefore the simple Reader may easily be deceived by telling them thus, That the Prophet in this Text, by griefs and sorrows, intends such sufferings by Christ as are due to us, namely, Hell-sorrows, as is plain from the Chapter. 2 He tells the Reader that this sense is plain, by comparing of the fourth and fifth verses with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and thus he doth wind in the fourth verse, with the fifth verse, whereas indeed the fifth verse only doth answer to 1 Pet. 2. 24. and so the Dialogue doth parallel it, and explain; and thus he deceives both himself and the Reader, by joining both these verses together in one sense, which in the Dialogue are handled asunder in a differing sense; and the Dialogue gives this evident reason for it, namely, because the bearing away of our griefs in vers. 4. is expounded by Matthew of his bearing away of our infirmities, and diseases, by the power of his Godhead; and to this very sense Matthew doth translate this verse of Isaiah, saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet, himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses; and besides, the Prophet himself doth confirm this sense in the last clause of this fourth verse, saying, Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. The Dialogue doth open this clause thus, Though the glory of his Godhead did shine in our eyes, (by his miraculous bearing away of sicknesses and infirmities) yet we esteemed him but as a gross Impostor, and therefore put him to death as a vild Malefactor, and then we judged him (that had done so many miraculous cures) to be stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted for his own deserved faults. And thus the Reader may see the true sense of this verse to be cleared by the context, as well as by Matthews translation. But if his bearing our sorrows, had meant that he bore our Hell-sorrows, than the last clause must have run thus, And we did rightly judge that he was plagued, and smitten of God's wrath with Hell-sorrows. But Mr. Norton cuts off this last clause with these words, The rest (saith he) is either impertinent, or uncontroverted; so that it seems he makes his last clause to be impertinent, for it is not uncontroverted. And now let the judicious Reader judge of his Answer by my Reply. SECT. II. But Mr. Norton goes on to prove, That Christ bore our very sorrow's, as a Porter bears a burden, in page 35. From the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this fourth verse: For (saith he) Though Nasa, he hath born, be of more general use, and doth sometimes signify to bear as a Porter bears a burden, and sometimes otherwise; Yet (saith he) Sabal, he hath carried, signifies properly to bear as one bears a burden; This restraineth the sense of the former word, and limits it to the received interpretation. Reply 2. BY this Exposition of Nasa with Sabal, Mr. Norten shows himself to be a greater Scholar than the Evangelist Matthew; For (saith he) Sabal signifieth properly to bear as one bears a burden; and therefore (saith he) this restraineth the sense of the former word Nasa to the received interpretation; by this, he tells the Reader, that Matthews interpretation is not the received interpretation, but that Mr. Nortons' interpretation is the received interpretation. They may receive it that please, The blind will eat many a fly, but I hope the Lord will help me to receive Matthews interpretation before it. But secondly, If Sabal doth signify properly to bear as one bears a burden, and doth restrain Nasa to the same sense, than it follows, that either Christ took the infirmities from the sick, and bore them upon his own body, as a Porter bears a burden, or else that Matthew gives a wrong interpretation of Sabal: And thus Mr. Norton hath put himself into a Dilemma, and therefore now he must either blame his own interpretation to justify Matthew, or else he must still blame Matthews interpretation of Sabal to justify his. 3 I conceive that Mr. Norton had reasoned more like a Scholar, if he had said, that though Sabal doth ordinarily signify to carry as a Porter bears a burden, yet sometimes, when it is joined with Nasa, it may signify lifting up, or bearing away, as Nasa doth usually. I am no Linguist, yet with a little help from others, I do sometimes make use of Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek See Ainsw. in Num. 6. 26. Lexicon, and there I see that Sabal is twice used with Nasa in Isa. 46. 4. in a metaphorical sense, for God's merciful delivering his people from Babylon (and a metaphorical sense may be compared with the literal in some respects, but yet such comparisons must not always run on four feet) I find also that the Seventy do there render Sabal by two differing Greek words, and neither of them do signify to bear as a Porter bears a burden, and I find they do use it also in other various senses; I find also that Sebel of Sabal is rendered by our Translators the charge, in taking care for the well-ordering of things, in 1 King. 11. 28. But suppose that Nasa and Sabal do signify that Christ bore our griefs and sorrows, as a Porter bears a burden, as he did in his affections of compassion; for it is after said, when they brought diseased persons to him, That he had compassion on them; and in this respect, he took our nature with our sinless infirmities, that so he might be touched, and might thereby know how to pity us, Heb. 2. 17, 18. But this bearing will not serve Mr. Nortons' turn, it is an amazing kind of bearing which Mr. Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell-pains. Mr. Norton mantains, namely, That all Christ's bodily sufferings were born as Hell-pains; For, saith he, in page 107. the penal wrath of God, or Hell-pains, were either outward, viz. such as he suffered in body, or inward, viz. such as be suffered in soul. Reply 3. By this Tenent of his, it necessarily follows, that Christ bore all his outward sufferings, as a Porter bears a burden, from his birth to his death, as Hell-pains. It is just with God, that he that keeps not close to the Context, when he doth expound the blessed Scriptures, especially when the sense is already made by conference of one Scripture with another, as Isaiah is by the Holy Ghost in Matthew (which is a sure rule of true Exposition) that God should leave them to wander after their own vain fantasies. Sentences of Scripture (saith Peter Martyr) must not be more largely understood, than the place itself wherein they are written may bear, for otherwise, saith he, We may be soon lead into error, in his Com. pl. part. 1. pag. 208. It is equally dangerous (saith another Reverend Divine) to add to the truth, and to take from it; yet (saith he) men do more generally offend in adding to the truth, being naturally inclined to foster those brats which their own fantasies have conceived and brought forth. CHAP. XII. SECT. I. Isa. 53. 5. Examined. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. etc. THese words (saith the Dialogue) do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds, bruises and stripes, for our peace and healing: But the Text doth not say, That he bore those wounds and bruises from God's wrath. Mr. Norton answers, true; But (yet saith he) Christ was wounded not only by Satan, and his instruments; God is the universal Efficient. Rep. 1. A●● that he speaks to this point, namely, That God is the universal efficient, is to little purpose, except it be to blind the Reader, to make him believe that the Dialogue doth make the Devil to be the universal efficient without God's appointment; but any one that pleaseth to peruse the Dialogue, may see, that it makes all Christ's sufferings to be from God's appointment, as the universal efficient: for the Dialogue propounds this Question, Who did wound him, and bruise him? and than it makes this answer, It was Satan by his Instruments, according to God's Prediction in Gen. 3. 15. for God said thus to Satan, Thou Satan shalt pierce him, thou Satan shalt put the promised Seed to Death, as a wicked Malefactor, by thy Instruments, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the Roman Soldiers; thou shalt pierce his hands and feet, by nailing them to the Cross, according to the determinate Counsel of God, and in this respect God may be said to wound him. Thus fare I have repeated the words of the Dialogue, and now I leave the judicious Reader to judge whether Master Norton had any just cause to except against the Dialogue, as if it did not make God to be the universal efficient in all Christ's sufferings. The like flourish he makes against the Dialogue in other Master Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue points, thereby labouring to make the simple Reader believe, That the Dialogue doth hold that which it doth abhor, as in Psa●, 103. 114. 130, etc. See my Reply in Cham 14. Repl. 4. so also in p. 40. after he had drawn a false inference from the sense of the Dialogue, than he concludes with this scoff, Sure you mistake yourself in arguing out of this text from the word Nasa, against concluding the Doctrine of imputation therefrom, because Nasa is not in the text. Repl. 2. The Dialogue doth not say that Nasa is in that text of Es. 53. 6. but the Dialogue doth frame its Argument from the translated term in Es. 53. 6. thus; If you will build the common Doctrine of imputation upon this translated phrase, The Lord hath laid our iniquities upon Christ (as many Interpreters do) then by the same phrase you must affirm, That the Father laid all our iniquities upon himself, by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself, for the Father is said to bear our sins, (in Psa. 25. 18. and in Psa. 32. 1.) as well as Christ, and Psal. 25. 18. Psal. 32. 1. Kirkeroes Hebrew & Greek Concordance tells me, that Nasa is in both those places, and in many other places; and Reason tells me, that the term of laying any thing upon a man's self, or upon another, is to bear it, and so the terms, He hath laid our iniquities upon him, Es. 53. 6. and He hath borne our iniquities, in Psal. 32. 1. & Psal. 25. 18. & Exo. 34. 7. etc. are terms in English that are Synonimons, and therefore the Argument of the Dialogue is sound and good, against such as maintain the Doctrine of imputation from the translated term in Es. 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all, and I believe that any indifferent judicious Reader will judge it so to be. The like unjust quarrel Mr. Norton makes against the Dialogue about the word Atonement, for saith he in p. 260. The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning atonement, seemeth to understand pardon of sin by Atonement; but here (saith he) it seemeth by Atonement to understand Reconciliation. Rep. 3. What can Mr. Norton mean else by this speech, but to make the Reader believe, that I did not in all my Discourse concerning Atonement, till now, make reconciliation to be meant by Atonement? the vanity of this unjust quarrel the Reader may please to see by the words of the Dialogue in the beginning, namely in p. 14. there I explain Atonement by Reconciliation, in these words of the Apostle, in 2 Cor. 5. 19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, or saith the Dialogue (by way of explanation) making atonement between the World and himself; and so in p. 32. I call the Judge's Atonement a reconciliation, but I pass over several other such like unjust exceptions, because I will spend my time the more in the substance of the main Controversy. SECT. II. The Conclusion of the Dialogue Discourses is this, That God did not wound Christ as an angry Judge for our sins, but it was for the trial of his Mediatorial obedience, and therefore he is said to learn obedience by the things that he suffered, Heb. 5. 8. IT seems that Mr. Nortons' great exception is at this conclusion, for he answers thus; Satan and men were Instruments of such a stroke, therefore it is no stroke of Divine vindicative Justice. This (saith he) is no good Consequent. Rep. 4. It seems that Mr. Norton by this answer holds, that all Master Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell pains. and every stroke of any Affliction that Christ suffered from the Devil and his Instruments, was from the revenging Justice of God; and therefore hence it follows, that when the Devil stirred up Herod to seek the Child's life (which also did occasion his Parents to carry him into Egypt) it was from God's Vindicative wrath, although, to prevent it, God in mercy warned Joseph to take the Child, and to fly into Egypt. It seemeth by Mr. Nortons' distribution of the Curse, in Gen. 2. 17. that he holds this for a firm conclusion, That all the outward afflictions of Christ were from God's Vindicative wrath, and therefore he calls them the outward penal Torments of Hell, as I formerly noted in Chap. 11. But yet Mr. Norton in the same Page doth acknowledge, That The true nature of all Christ's greatest Sufferings was Chastisements, therefore they cannot be called the Essential Torments of Hell from God's vindicative wrath. all the afflictions which God inflicteth upon the Elect from the same Curse, are but Chastisements, and not Vindicative punishments, and so that affliction of their flight into Egypt was but a Chastisement to Joseph and Mary, but it was a Vindicative punishment to Christ: But I would fain know a little more of Mr. Nortons' skill, how he can call the Afflictions and Punishments which Christ suffered, Hell Torments from Gods Vindicative wrath, seeing the Holy Ghost doth comprehend them all under the word Chastisement, in this very fifth Verse? for the Prophet speaks here of all the greatest Sufferings of Christ, which he endured in that long action of his Passion, from his Apprehension to his Death, I say, all these sufferings he comprehends under the word Chastisements; but it seems that Mr. Norton hath an Art beyond the Holy Ghost to distinguish them from Chastisements, and to rank them under God's Vindicative Justice; let the Reader judge if he do not undertake to be learned above the Holy Ghost in the sense of the word Chastisement. The Learned observe that the Hebrew word Musar, derived from Jasar, doth properly signify the correction of a Father towards his Son, as all these places do testify, Prov. 3. 11, 12. Prov. 19 18. Deut. 8. 5. Psal. 94. 12. Jer. 31. 18. and in Heb. 5. 6. Heb. 5. 6 the Apostle doth concur with the Prophet Isaiah, That the true nature of all Christ's Sufferings were but Chastisements, for he saith thus, Though he were the Son, yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered; his learning of obedience is the subjection of a Son to his Father's chastisement, and therefore it follows necessarily, That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements, they were not infl●cted on him from God's Vindicative wrath, and I believe that this is a sound truth, that will hold water if the Scripture hold. Secondly, It is further evident that the Sufferings of Christ are fare from being inflicted on him from God's Vindicative wrath; because all his sufferings, and all the sufferings of the Saints are founded alike in Gods fatherly love, and in that respect there is a reciprocal communion between Christ the Head and all his members, in all their sufferings. 1 The Elect do partake with Christ in all his sufferings, I mean in respect of the kind of them, as these Scriptures do testify, Phil. 3. 10, 11. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rom. 6. 2 Cor. 1. 5. Mar. 10. 39 Luk. 22. 28. and therefore hence it follows necessarily, that if the sufferings of Christ were from God's Vindicative wrath, that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from God's Vindicative wrath, seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kind of his sufferings. Secondly, These Scriptures do testify that Christ the Head doth communicate with all his Members in all their sufferings, Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. Es, 63. 1, 2. And hence it doth necessarily follow, that if all the Sufferings of the Members of Christ be but Chastisements, than the Sufferings of Christ must not be ranked in any other form of Justice but where Gods Chastisements are. Thirdly, It is evident, that all the Sufferings of Christ are called but temptations of Trial, Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. and Christ himself at the upshot of his life doth call all his former Afflictions but such temptations of Trial, wherein his Apostles had been sharers with him, Luk. 22. 28. and therefore it doth hence follow, that they were not inflicted on him from God's Vindicative wrath, unless M. Norton will prove that the Apostles also did suffer God's Vindicative wrath, which in another place he seems to deny. SECT. III. But it may be some will here object, That though Christ's Sufferings were but Chastisements, yet they were inflicted on him from God's Wrath, for even Gods Fatherly Chastisements are inflicted from his wrath, 2 Sam. 24. 1. therefore if Christ did partake with his people but in their kind of punishments, his suffering must also be from God's wrath. Reply 5. IT doth not follow, for Christ might truly partake Christ's Sufferings may justly be called punishments, such as the godly suffer, and yet not from God● wrath, as theirs i●. with them in their punishments, in respect of sense and feeling, and yet from a differing cause, and for a differing end, as for example, The godly may suffer wounds in their body for sin inherent, in a judicial way both from God and Superiors, and Christ also may suffer such like wounds, and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed, but as a voluntary Combater with Satan and his Instruments, for the winning of the Prize, even for the Redemption of the Elect and all this without any wrath from the voluntary Covenanters and Masters of the Prize; and in this sense only Christ did suffer wounds and bruises, namely as a voluntary Combater, for in Gen. 3. 15. God declared his Decree, that he would put an utter enmity between Satan and the Seed of the deceived Woman, and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ, and to bruise him, and to pierce him as a Malefactor in the footsoals, and to do what he could to disturb his patience, and so to hinder his death from being a Sacrifice; but because Christ continued obedient to the death, even to the ignominious and painful death of the Cross, and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice, he overcame Principalities and Powers in it, namely in the manner of his death on the Cross, so that the cause of Christ's Wounds was not from God's judicial imputation of our sin and guilt, nor from God's judicial wrath, but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Satan, for the breaking of his Headplot by his constant obedience, even to the death of the Cross for man's Redemption; so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing caus●, and are for a differing end from ●he sufferings of the Sa●●●● and so consequently not from God's wrath, as theirs is; But I shall enlarge this point in the end of this Chapter, and often elsewhere, because it hath an undeniable foundation of truth in Gen. 3. 15. and all the Prophets do but comment upon that declared Decree of God. SECT. iv But saith Mr. Norton, pag. 38. The sufferings of Christ included in this text, are not only such wherein Satan and men were instruments: But some of them (saith he) were immediately inflicted of God, without any second means as instruments thereof; Hence we read of a wounded spirit, Prov. 18. 4. A wounded conscience, 1 Cor. 8. 12. A broken and a bruised heart, Luke 4. 18. The plague of the heart, 1 King. 8. 38. Reply 6. A judicious Reader may well smile at the unsuitableness of these proofs to his Proposition: In his Proposition he saith, That some of Christ's sufferings were inflicted None of Christ's sufferings were inflicted on him from God's immediate wrath. immediately of God without any second means as instruments thereof: But any judicious Reader may soon see, that a wounded spirit, a wounded conscience, etc. do come to be so wounded by second means, namely, by the sight of sin, and the desert of sin: But suppose that God doth in some cases inflict punishments immediately on some men's souls, by his supreme power, without respect of sin, yet that doth not answer to the Proposition of the Dialogue, for the Dialogue doth not speak of men's souls, but of Christ's soul. The Dialogue saith, That Christ's soul is not capable of bearing wounds from God's immediate wrath: But all Mr. Nortons' proofs are of men's souls that are sinners. But saith Mr. Norton in page 38. Satan being a spirit may have access unto, and consequently both may, and doth afflict the spirit, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Eph. 2. 12. 16. Reply 7. What though Satan may afflict the spirit of a sinner, yet still that doth not prove his Proposition which he undertook to make good, namely, That God from his immediate wrath did afflict the spirit of Christ. But saith Mr. Norton, If Satan cannot yet God can. Reply 8. What God can do is one thing, and what God did to the soul of Christ is another thing; But still his Proposition to be proved is. That God did inflict his immediate wrath upon the soul of Christ without any second means. 2 For a more full answer to both the former speeches of In his Child of Light▪ p. 52, 53. 120. Mr. Norton, I shall refer you to Mr. Thomas Goodwin; he saith that the soul of Adam in his innocency, and the soul of Christ were privileged from all inward suggestions from Satan, and that Satan could tempt them not otherwise but by his outward temptations only; And I find other Divines to accord with him. 3 He sheweth also, that God doth not torment the souls of the damned by his immediate wrath, but by second means; For (saith he) though God is to be feared, because he only can cast both body and soul into hell; Yet (saith he) this is not meant as if God were the immediate Tormentor of souls after the great day, seeing they are to be tormented by that fire which God hath prepared in common for them and the Devils. 4 P. Martyr (in his Com. pl. part. 4. pag. 314.) saith, It is the property of God to command, and not to execute things commanded; And saith Baxter in his Saints Rest, page 275. God afflicts men's souls, not immediately, but by instruments. But saith Mr. Norton in page 39 Christ suffered not only in body, but in soul, Isa. 53. 10. When thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin; My soul is exceeding Mat. 26. 38. sorrowful to the death, Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. His great heaviness, sore amazement, agony, sweat as it were drops of blood, Mar. 14. 33. Luke 22. 44. cannot be looked at in a person that was Luke 22. 44. God and man, as less than the effects of Soul-sorrows, Hell-sorrows, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell. Reply 9 I have showed in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 16. Sect. 3. That the soul of Christ in these places quoted by Mr. Norton, are meant of his vital soul, and not of his immortal soul. 2 That Christ himself was his own Afflicter with soul-sorrows, Chap. 16. Sect. 2. and Chap. 17. Sect. 4. Reply 15. 3 When all these cited Scriptures are put together, they prove no more but this, that Christ suffered much in his soul, as well as in his body; But where doth any of them say, That his soul-sufferings were inflicted on him from God's immediate wrath, without any second means? which is the very point that Mr. Norton undertook to make good. But saith he, His great heaviness, sore amazement, and sweat, as it were great drops of blood, cannot be looked at in a person that was both God and man, as less than the effects of Hell-sorrows, etc. Reply 10. Doth not Mr. Norton hold forth in these words that the humane nature of Christ was a true part of his divine person? why else doth he say, That his great heaviness, sore Christ's humane nature was often purposely left of the divine nature, that so it might be touched with the sense of our infirmities more than ours can be. amazement, &c. cannot be looked at in a person that was God and man, as less than the effects of Hell-sorrows? as if Christ's humane nature was not able to bear these sorrows, without the powerful assistance of his divine nature: It seems to me, he thinks that his Godhead by virtue of personal union did always cooperate to the assisting of his humane nature to undergo his soul-sorrows, as our bodies are helped to bear our sufferings by our souls, by reason of personal union: But I shall join with those Divines that reason contrary; for both ancient and latter Divines do often say, That his divine nature did often rest, that so his humane nature might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; and this the divine nature might do, because the humane nature was no true part of his divine person (as our souls are to make our bodies a person) but an Appendix only: The union of his humane nature to his divine person, was such an ineffable union, that it cannot be exemplified by any other union whatsoever: Indeed, if his humane nature had been a true part of his divine person, as our souls are of our persons, than it must have helped his humane nature to bear his sorrows; but I think it is no less than heresy to hold so; but because it was but an Appendix to his divine person, therefore the divine nature could put out his power to leave the humane nature to its self, and to its own qualifications, to be touched to the utmost with th●●, sensible feeling of our infirmities; and therefore I say, That the perfections of his humane nature, and the unction of the holy Spirit at his instalment was sufficient to support him, and to regulate his soul-sorrows, without the co-operation of his divine nature; and doubtless, as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits, so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities, much more than our corrupt natures can be. But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ; and in respect of his ineffable union, his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience, and natural actions. But saith Mr. Norton in page 39 The Curse is not only bodily, but spiritual, as we were delivered from our sin, so he bore our sin; But we were delivered not only from the bodily, but also from the spiritual punishment of sin. Therefore, etc. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech, We were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin, doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell. But I have showed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatened to Adam and his posterity, in case he did eat of the forbidden fruit, was a spiritual death in sin; and that bodily death, and eternal death was threatened after this as a just punishment for Adam's death in sin; and hence I reason thus: That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin, without bearing it in kind, and from our bodily diseases, in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind, he may as well deliver us from our spiritual and eternal death in hell, without bearing it in kind. But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm, that obedience of Christ to be meritorious, and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice, you so often affirm a contradiction; the very nature of merit including justice; for merit is a just desert, or a desert in way of justice. Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice, or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant. The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit, and how Christ did merit our Redemption. vindicative justice; but yet it makes all Christ's sufferings to be performed in a way of justice, according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant; but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit, because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope, or else he could not have said, that it affirms a contradiction: Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni, f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth, that the meritorious cause of all Christ's sufferings and death, was from God's judicial imputing our sins to Christ. But the Dialogue goes another way to work, it shows from God's declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combat against the seed of the deceived woman, and that Christ in his humane nature, must combat against him, and break his Headplot, by continuing obedient to the death, and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious, because it was all performed in a way of justice, namely, in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant, as I have showed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for man's Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatening to Satan (doubtless in the hearing of Adam, and for his instruction) that he would put an enmity between him and the woman, and between the devil's seed and her seed (he shall enter the Lists, and try Masteries with thee) and he shall break thy Headplot (and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44.) And Thou Satan shalt bear an utter enmity against him; and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman, and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience, as thou hadst to pervert the obedience of Adam, and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies, or by the torture of a painful death, and so pervert him in his obedience, than thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice, and so from the breaking of thy Headplot, and so from winning the prize, and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst, and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise, and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death, like to wicked malefactors. But in case he shall continue patiented without disturbance, and continue obedient to the death, without any diversion, and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power, than I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect, and so he shall break thy Headplot, and win the prize, which is the salvation of all the Elect; and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb, presently after his Fall. Lo, here is a true description of Christ's merit, according to the order of justice, as it was agreed on, in the voluntary Covenant; For we may gather from the threatening, First, That there was such a voluntary Covenant. Secondly, That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials. And thirdly, that upon the performance thereof, God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect, Phi. 2. 9, 10, 11. Es. 5 3 10 etc. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris, part. 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause. That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation (saith he) is a kind of efficient, there needs no other proof, then that it binds as it were the principal efficient, to perform that which upon the merit is due; As if a man in running a race, or the like, so runneth as the order of the Game requireth, by so doing, he meriteth the prize or reward, and thereby also he bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved. This is a true description of the true nature of Christ's merit according to the order of justice, in the voluntary Covenant, better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. norton's is from the legal order of Court-justice, by a legal imputation of sin; for the Scripture is silent in this way, and plain in the other way. And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant, These Conclusions do follow. 1 That the wounds, bruises, and bloodshed of such as did win the prize, cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game, caused through the imputation of sin, and guilt against their Laws; for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law, as the Apostle doth witness in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9 24. and on Heb. 12. 1, 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combat doth lose the prize. and on 2 Tim. 4. 8. and take notice, that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrestlings have I wrestled, namely, for the mastery and victory; and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows, That the said wounds, bruises, and bloodshed, ought not to be accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin. punishments from the Masters of the prize, but as voluntary trials of their manhood, of their patience, and obedience to their Laws. 3 Hence it follows, That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa. 53. 5. 10. etc. which Christ suffered, were no other but the very same that God had declared he should suffer from Satan, God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise, but as he gave Satan leave to do his worst unto Christ. in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that the Hebrew word for bruised or pierced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa. 59 5. 10. but yet in both places, it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Satan and his instruments; Isaiah saith, He was wounded and bruised for our transgressions, namely, by Satan at God's appointment, and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combat with Satan, therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should be for the chastisement of our peace, and for our healing; And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, namely, according to God's prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath, he was not pressed under the sense of God's wrath, as Mr. Norton affirms, for to be pressed under the sense of God's wrath, is to be forced to suffer by violence. Job did acknowledge, when the Devil destroyed his and children, that it was the Lord that took these things from him, Job 1. 21. and saith, when the Devil smote him full of boils, The hand of the Lord hath touched me, Job 19 1. and yet it was Satan that did smite him with boils, Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah, To delight to bruise Christ, and to put him to grief, because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combat for the victory, Act. 2. 23. and so it is said, That God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, namely, to Satan and his Instruments to combat with him, Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort, God is said, To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ, Joh. 19 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners, Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined, Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions, Joh. 18. 11. because he declared that Satan should have this liberty and power, Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners, Joh. 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretell his sufferings to his Disciples, saying, Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests, and unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn him unto death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles, and they shall mock him, and scourge him, and spit upon him, and shall kill him, Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33, 34. Luke 18. 31, 32, 33. Luke 24. 7. 25, 26, 44, 46. Act. 13. 27, 28, 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant, as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from God's wrath. 4 This doth clearly exemplify, how, and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious. 5 This doth also clearly exemplify, how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments, without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God. 6 This also doth exemplify, how God is said to be just to sinners, in 1 Joh. 1. 9 Rom. 3. 26. namely, because he had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator, that upon the performance of his combat with Satan, according to the Laws of the combat, that then he should thereby obtain his reconciliation to believing sinners; As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combat, and made his soul a sacrifice, according to the eternal Covenant, God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins, that so he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus: Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed, his death could not have been called a punishment. Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant, he may see an instance to the contrary. But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator, and a Malefactor, are clearly distinct in themselves; yet your distinguishing between Christ's dying as a Mediator, and as a Malefactor, is unsound. Reply 14. Though it be unsound in Mr. Nortons' sense, yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense; let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case. 1 He must die as a Malefactor, for God had armed Satan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor, and to crucify him in the Footsoals. And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combat, he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation (taught by the death of some Lamb) by his Priestly power, even by the joint concurrence of both his natures, or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament, through death, if he had not (as soon as he had finished all his sufferings) offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit; both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice, and in that respect only he was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death; As the Apostles argument lies in Heb, 9 14, 15, 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor, and a Mediator, to be clearly distinct. 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ, were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entering the Lists with Satan (not in the power of his Godhead, but) in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman, and as it was accompanied with our infirmities: And in this respect he is said by Isaiah, to be wounded or tormented for our transgressions, and to be bruised for our iniquities. And thus Peter must be understood, when he saith, He bore our sins in his body on the Tree; that is to say, Our punishments in his combat with Satan, 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Satan, Isa. 53. 7. when he suffered himself to be apprehended by a band of armed Soldiers, and to be bound Es. 53. 7. as a prisoner, and as a Malefactor; and in this sense Christ saith I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for his sheep, Joh. 10. 11. I will readily venture my life in the combat with that roaring Lion Satan for the redemption of my sheep; And thus Moses did offer his life to redeem the lives of the Israelites when they had forfeited their lives into the hands of God's justice, by worshipping the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. Then Moses said, I will now go up to the Lord, peradventure I shall make Atonement for your sin; and he said to God, If thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not (but that they must still die) blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written (called the Book of the living, Ps. 69. 29. and called also the Writing of the house of Israel, Eze. 13. 9) And herein Moses (saith Ainsworth) dealt as a Mediator, between God and men, and was a figure of our Mediator Christ, who laid down his life for his sheep, Job. 10. 15. and redeemed us from the curse of the Law, when he was made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses, say the Hebrew Doctors was, That he might die instead of them, and bear their iniquity according to that in Isa. 53. 5. He was wounded for our Trespasses: For (say the Hebrew Doctors) The death of the just maketh Reconciliation. Ex. 32. 32. See Ains. in Exod. 32. 32. But in case Moses had been made guilty of their sin by God's imputation, doubtless he had not been a fit person to offer his life as a Mediator for their lives. This resemblance, I grant, is but very weak, because Moses did not offer to give his life as a Mediator for them, by a mutual Covenant, but of his own head, and therefore his offer was refused; yet that speech of the Hebrew Doctors, The death of the just maketh Reconciliation, may somewhat enlighten touching that place in 1 Pet. 3. 18. where it is said, That 1 Pet 3. 18. Christ suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; for he being just in God's sight, engaged himself, to a mutual and reciprocal, Covenant, to enter the Lists with Satan, and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Satan, even to the death of the Cross, that so at last he might make his soul a sacrifice of Atonement, and so bring us to God. Mark this, He is called the just in all his sufferings: But he was not so called in the Jews account, for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor. Neither could he be said to be absolutely just in the sight of God, in case God had imputed the guilt of our sins to him in a formal legal way: But saith Peter, The just suffered for the unjust, he that knew himself to be every way just in the sight of God, and of his Law, he entered the Lists, and suffered from Satan's enmity, and yet still he continued obedient to the death, and so continued to be just. And hence we may see wherein the efficacy of Christ's All Christ's sufferings were without any imputation of sin from God, and therefore he was accepted, and so his obedience to the death doth bring us to God. sufferings do consist, namely, in this, because in all his conflict with Satan, his patience was not disturbed, nor his obedience perverted, but to the very last, he approved himself to be most just and righteous in the sight of God, and therefore he conquered Satan by righteousness (as the ancient Divines do very often speak) because he strove lawfully, according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters; And so he won the prize. 2 In his combat with Satan, his obedience was eminent, above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that patiently submits his life to be taken away by justice, because he put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Satan, and in all his sufferings, that so he might please him that had chosen him to be the Captain of our salvation; and in that respect his chastisements which he suffered from Satan's malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper, are said to be for our peace and healing (by obtaining a reconciliation for us) and so he doth heal us, and bring us to God; and so say the Hebrew Doctors, The death of the Just maketh Reconciliation. It is no evil in itself to be punished from a voluntary undertaking of a combat, but to be punished in a legal way, through a legal imputation of sin and guilt, that is a true evil indeed. Christ was voluntary in complying with all his sufferings, or else they had not been meritorious. See also Ch. 6 3 Take notice in some particulars how eminently active Christ was in his sufferings as a voluntary Combater. 1 He was lead by the Spirit, that lighted on him at his Baptism, into the Wilderness, as soon as ever he was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office, on purpose to try Masteries with the Devils temptations (which no man else in the world might presume to do, but this Captain of our salvation) and in this respect all his sufferings may more fitly be called active sufferings, or active passive obedience, rather than passive obedience, for he put forth a ready and voluntary compliance with them, and that by way of anticipation, according to Covenant, as a voluntary undertaker of the combat for our Redemption; and this kind of obedience in his sufferings, made his chastisements to be meritorious for our peace, and for our healing, as the Dialogue shows in p. 49. 2 Take another instance of Christ's voluntary obedience, in entering into the Lists with Satan as the Captain of our salvation, in all that long business that is called his Passion. 1 He manifested himself to be continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to be for his apprehension and death, Luke 12. 50. Joh. 12. 23, 27. etc. Joh. 13. 1. and in verse 2, 3. Supper being ended, and Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand, namely, to order himself in every circumstance of his sufferings, in his combat with Satan, according to the Articles of the Eternal Covenant (for the Text saith, That he knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him, Joh. 6. 64. Joh. 13. 11.) therefore he was active, and provoked Judas at Supper to go out, saying unto him, What thou dost, do quickly, Joh. 13. 27. and then saith he, The Son of man goes as it is determined (namely by a mutual Covenant) Luke 22. 22. and then said he, The Prince of this world cometh (to encounter with me, with more armed violence than formerly) but saith he, He hath nothing in me, Joh. 14. 30. he hath no just ground to accuse me for breaking the Laws of the combat, and therefore he cannot hinder me from winning the prize; and when Christ arose to go to the Garden, where he knew he must be apprehended, he said thus to his Disciples, As my Father gave me a Commandment (or Appointment) so I do; Arise▪ let us go hence, Joh. 14. 31. It is my Father's appointment, and it is my Covenant that I should now arise to meet these armed Arch-Instruments of Satan. And when Judas and the Soldiers came to apprehend him, he said to the chief Priests, This is your hour, and the power of darkness (you have full liberty to do your worst against me) Luke 22. 53. And when Peter went about to protect him from their power by his sword, he would not be protected from Satan's power, and therefore he bid him to put up his sword; for said he, If I had a mind to be protected from their power, I could pray to my Father, and he would give me more than twelve Legions of Angels; But how then (said he) shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that say, Thus it must be? Matth. 26. 53, 54. for the Scriptures say, That I must be pierced as a Malefactor in the Footsoals, Gen. 3. 15. and so likewise in the hands, Psal. 22. 16. And that I must be oppressed by a band of armed Soldiers, Joh. 18. 3. 12. and brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, Isa. 53. 7. Isa. 33 7. And when he came to his Answer, he doth not so much as plead for himself, either before the High Priest, Mat. 26. 63. or afterwards before Pilate, Mat. 27. 12, 14. But as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so be opened not his mouth. And because it was the appointed hour of the power of the Prince of darkness, to exercise his utmost force against him, therefore he did not like a faint-hearted Soldier, withdraw himself from them into some unknown place, but he purposely went into a known Garden where he knew he must be apprehended by Satan's Arch-Instruments (and be lead by them as a sheep to the slaughter) Joh. 18. 1. And then because he knew all things, and what should befall him, he went forth, Joh. 18. 4. namely, to meet the Devils Instruments that came to apprehend him, Joh. 18. 6. And as soon as he had but said unto them, I am He (that must break the Devil's Headplot by my constant patience and obedience) they all fell to the ground at his word speaking, and here he kept them, for his Disciples sake, until they might have liberty to departed; and if he would he might have departed as well as they, but instead of departing, he put forth another act of his divine power to raise them up again, that so he might be active in delivering himself unto their power, to be apprehended, and to be bound as a Malefactor, and so to be carried before the Elders of the people; And thus he was active to drink of the bitter Cup that his Father had given him, for he had said but a little before unto Peter, Put up thy sword (and protect me not against these furies of Satan) shall I not drink of the Cup that my Father hath given me? namely, by his appointment, and by mine own agreement from eternity. By these, and such like passages, it is evident, that Christ was eminently voluntary and active in all his sufferings and combatings with Satan, as a good Shepherd that doth readily venture his life against the Lion and the Bear for the safety of his sheep, he suffered nothing by constraint from his Father's wrath, through his judicial imputation of our sins, being pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, as Mr. Nortons' terms are, but God was pleased to let Satan lose, to oppress him, to wound, and to bruise him, and to put him to as much grief as he could, to disturb his patience, and to pervert him in the course of his obedience, when his soul should make itself an offering, that so he might prevent his sacrifice, by which means only, it was decreed that the Devil's Headplot must be broken. Conclusion. Hence it follows, that seeing the Devil could not, neither by his fraudulent temptations in the Wilderness, nor yet by his temptations of force in the Garden, and on the Cross, provoke him to any impatience, or to any disobedience, by his ignominious tortures, when his soul should make an offering, but that still he continued constant in his obedience, and at last did make his soul a sacrifice by his own Priestly power, according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant; his death and sufferings must needs be meritorious for the obtaining of God's Reconciliation, and man's Redemption from Satan's Headplot. CHAP. XIII. The Examination of Isa. 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the Iniquities of us all. THe Exposition given by the Dialogue of this translated term [The Lord hath laid upon] is sound and good Divinity, and not confuted by Mr. Nortons' Answer, he cannot hence mantain the point of imputing our sins to Christ, which is the main thing controverted, and which I have already replied unto in Ch. 7. But because I received some Animadversions from a Reverend Divine that gave another Translation than formerly I followed, and from thence he also gave another differing Exposition from mine, by means whereof I was put to a stand for a time, though after serious seeking unto God by prayer, conference, reading, and meditation upon the Context, I came at last to a more clear apprehension of the meaning of the words, to my satisfaction; for upon the said search, I could not find that the Prophet in this Text did speak of God's judicial imputing our sins to Christ, or that it spoke any thing directly of God's judicial inflicting our deserved penalties (namely Hell torments) upon Christ, because no verse either before or after this verse, did conclude any such thing; and therefore upon serious consideration, I durst not take this verse in that sense. I confess I am no Linguist, yet I love sometimes to search into Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek Lexicon, to see in how many various senses the Seventy do render the Hebrew words; and sometimes in more difficult cases, I love to confer with such as are learned in the Tongues. And by this means I find that the Hebrew word Pagah in this verse doth signify to Meet, and because it is in the conjugation Hiphil, it doth signify to Cause to meet; so than the words must run thus, The Lord caused him to meet, namely, the Father caused the Mediator to meet, to consult the way of fallen man's Redemption from Satan's Headplot; and in that meeting all the Trinity were equal Counsellors and Covenanters; but the Father is said to make or cause the meeting, because he is first in order, yet because there is but one will in the Trinity, therefore in Jer. Jer. 30. 21. 30 21. the Father saith thus in commendation of Christ, Who is this that (hath) engaged his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord? Now hence it may fitly be demanded how Christ did engage his heart? the answer is, that he did it by way of Contract or Covenant; and therefore the Hebrew word Gnarab, which we translate engaged, doth properly signify no more but a conjunction or joining together, but in this place it relates to the conjunction of the Father and the Son in a Covenant for man's Redemption, and accordingly it is sometimes put for a conjunction of persons in a league or confederation, as I have showed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time. But thus the whole verse in Jeremy may be read and paraphrased, His excellent one shall be of himself, and his Ruler shall go forth from the midst of him, and I will cause him to draw near, namely, as a Priest, with an acceptable sacrifice; for this Hebrew word is used in Leu. 1. 2. for offering an oblation, or bringing near a gift; so then to bring near, or approach near unto God, is to offer unto him, and to offer a sacrifice for sin, is to make Atonement: See Ains. in Leu. 6. 26. and therefore one of these is used for another, as in 1 Chron. 16. 1. they brought near burnt offerings; for which in 2 Sam. 6. 17. is written, David offered burnt offerings; so in Numb. 6. 14, 16, 17. The Nazarite shall bring near his oblation, and the Priest shall bring them near, that is, both the Nazarite and his sacrifice: And saith God of Christ, I will cause him to draw near, and approach unto me; for who is this that hath engaged his heart, or conjoined himself with me in a Covenant to do my will for man's Redemption? And in answer to this Covenant, Christ saith, In offerings and sacrifices for sin, thou hast had no pleasure, than said I, Lo I come to do thy will, O God, thy Law is in my heart, Psal. 40. 8. Heb. 10. and saith Ainsworth in Psal. 148. 14. Psal. 40. 8. Christ draweth near unto God for his people, and there he citeth this Text of Jer. 30. 21. and so also through Christ's sacrifice we have boldness to draw nigh to God, Heb. 7▪ 19 Heb. 10. 22. 2 As these words (He caused him to meet) may be applied to the meeting of the Trinity, for the constituting of the eternal Covenant, so they may be applied also in speech of the execution of the said eternal Covenant, when Christ met his Father with his sacrifice of Atonement, and then the words must go thus, The Father made or constituted Him, namely, his Son, to meet him as a Priestly Mediator, with his appointed sacrifice of his vital soul, to atone his wrath for the iniquities of us all, that by nature had gone astray like lost sheep, as it is expressed in the beginning of the verse. And thus this meeting may be understood both of the eternal Council and Covenant of the Trinity, and also of the execution of it. 3 The Learned say, that the Hebrew word Pagah in the conjugation Hiphil, comes no more but six times in the Old Testament, namely, in Isa. 53. 6. Isa. 53. 12. Isa. 59 16. Jer. 15. 11. Jer. 36. 25. Job 36. 32. Now the last five places are rendered both by Tremelius, and by our English Translations, for such a meeting, as is by way of mediation, entreaty, or intercession. Though properly the Hebrew word signifies no more but to make to meet, or to appoint some persons to meet for several ends; but yet in the said five places it is applied to a meeting by way of intercession: As for example, in Isa. 53. 12. He made him to meet for Transgressor's, namely, by way of intercession for Transgressor's, as our Translations do phrase it. 2 In Isa. 59 16. He wondered that none was made to meet, namely, as an Intercessor; the Geneva saith, He wondered that none would offer himself; the Seventy say, He wondered that there was none to deliver. But the first sense is most full with the Hebrew. 3 In Jer. 15. 11. I will make, or cause the enemy to meet thee in the time of thy affliction, or I will cause him to entreat thee well; The Seventy say, to assist thee. 4 In Jeremy 36. 25. The three men (there named) had made to meet, namely, they had made an agreement (as Jobs three friends did, Job 2. 11.) to meet the King, as Intercessors, that he would not burn the roll; The Geneva say, They besought him; But the Seventy say, They opposed or resisted him, namely, by their intercession and entreaties. 5 In Job 36. 32. With clouds he covereth the light, and commandeth it by that which cometh betwixt. Mr. Broughton reads it thus, He chargeth it, as men do pray, namely, he chargeth the clouds, as men do intercede by prayer, and Tremelius doth concur to that sense; and that sense may cause us to remember God's promise in 1 King. 8. 35. 36. When they pray, I will give rain upon the Land; and it may also cause us to remember Deut. 11. 14. and Zach. 10. 1. etc. Now seeing these five places in the conjugation Hiphil do signify to cause, or make a meeting, and all of them by way of mediation or intercession, Doubtless the first place in Isa. 53. 6. must in reason have the like signification. Mr. Norton saith in page 48. That the Hebrew word in the conjugation Hiphil, doth signify to meet together as upon a heap. Reply 1. I apprehend that the word heap doth but misled the Reader, except he can handsomely show that every meeting (caused by any) is a heap; I grant that two or three meeting together, may be called (Kakal) a Church, Synagogue, or Assembly, as I have showed in the Jews Synagogue Discipline, but usually no meeting, but a great multitude, is called a heap: But it appears by what I have said, that this meeting of the Mediatorcaused by the Father, to mediate for the Elect, cannot fitly be called a heap, though it may fitly be called a meeting. 2. Saith Mr. Norton in page 153. The iniquities of us all, gathered together as in a heap, were laid upon him. And thirdly, in page 93. he saith, That all the curses of the Law were heaped together, and laid upon him. Reply 2. By this you see the reason why Mr. Norton doth make Pagah to signify to meet together, as upon a heap, namely, that he may make Christ to be both a heap of sin, and a heap of curses, in a legal and formal sense. 3 Mr. Norton doth also confound his Reader, by telling him That one Hebrew root hath contrary significations; Piaculum, saith he, doth signify both a sacrifice, and a sinful deed. Reply 3. If the Hebrew word for fin, be taken in a metaphorical Sin is often taken in a metaphorical sense for a Sin-sacrifice, that procures God's Atonement for sin. signification, as well as in a proper, then there is no contrary sense, though there is a differing sense; he that shall point to a Priest making a sacrifice for sin, may say there is a sin; and he that shall point to Cain killing Abel, may also say there is a sin; the word Sin therefore must be taken in each place where it is used, as the Context shall direct, sometimes in a proper sense, and sometimes in a metaphorical; And for the want of this observation, a man may make a contrary signification of Piaculum, or else not. The word Sin in Exod. 30. 10. is there put for the Sin-offering, and that sin is by the Seventy called the purgation of sin, and in 2 Chron. 29. 24. they render it the expiation of sin, and in Exod. 29. 36. the cleansing of sin, and in Ezek. 43. 22. the Propitiation or Reconciliation, and in Ezek. 44. 27. the appeasing for sins, and in Num. 19 12, 13, 19 the Purification. And the reason why sin is named by these several names, is, because the Sin-offering was ordained to appease God's anger, to expiate, to purge, and to cleanse the sinner from his sin; yea the word sin is rendered by the Seventy, the change, or the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly, because the sin (namely the Sin-offering) doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean, and from enmity to Reconciliation. These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia, shows the word to have a differing sense, but not a contrary sense, as Mr. Norton affirms, to amuse his Reader; the like happily may be said to his other Instances: But for further light, See what I have replied to the signification of Azab, in Psal. 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah; take it without the conjugation Hiphil, and then it signifies only to meet; but the particular occasions of every meeting, must be sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used. As for example. 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place. 2 It may signify the meeting of time, as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon, or the meeting of words, or the meeting of persons for this or that end, either in mercy, or in wrath. 3 Pagah to meet, is applied to God's meeting with man, or to man's meeting with God in his worship. Moses and Aaron, said unto Pharaoh, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us, and commanded us to go into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to him; therefore we pray thee, let us go three day's journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest he meet us with Pestilence, etc. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb. 23. 3, 4, 5, 15. 16. Balaam did meet the Lord with sacrifice, and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack: In these places Pagah is put for God's meeting with man, and man's meeting with God. And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land, If it be your mind that I should bury my dead, meet with Ephron for me; namely, meet him by way of entreaty; the Seventy say, Speak for me: And so Ruth said to Naomi, Meet me not to leave thee, that is to say, Meet me not by thy earnest entreaties to leave thee, Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau, namely, with an acceptable present, to cover his face, that is, to appease his anger, Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8, 10. These Instances show that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects. And after this manner God ordained Christ to be our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Father's wrath with the Sacrifice of his body & blood. in a Sacrifice; for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God, to mediate his reconciliation to sinners, must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God, as he will accept, and therefore it must be that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant, Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the best thing that Christ had to meet God withal, and that was his vital soul, with his body and blood, offered in perfect obedience to Gods will, notwithstanding Satan endeavoured to disturb his obedience; with this present Christ did meet his offended Father, that was most justly provoked by Adam's sin, and by our sins; and so according to Covenant, God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the atoning, and the appeasing of his wrath, as the word Atonement doth signify. Of which word, see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142, 143. In this sense, I say, the Father made, or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all. 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract: And 2 In the execution of it. Pagnin renders this verse two ways, indifferently. 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam. 2 Velure rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate. And both these readings may well agree to the same sense. 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him, namely, he made him to undertake our sins, as our Priest and Sacrifice, to make Atonement for them; and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse. 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all, or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body, for the iniquities of us all. And thus both readings do agree to the same sense; but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew, therefore now I follow that. The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus, And the So Mr. Clendou in Justification justified, p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake. And Tindal translates it thus: But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins. From these Translations and Expositions it follows, 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ, in Mr. Nortons' sense, was not held forth by these Translators, neither can it be proved from this verse, nor from any other, when the right interpretation is given, and Mr. Norton himself confesseth thus much in general, That the guilt of our sins could not be imputed to Christ, unless he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have showed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere, with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines, that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam; and therefore by his own confession, until he prove that Christ was Adam's Surety, Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation, and thence it follows, that it must needs be an unsound Assertion, to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings: But yet though I deny Christ to be our legal Surety, I do notwithstanding freely grant that he undertook our cause as our voluntary Surety, according to the voluntary Covenant, and that he took our sins on him thus far namely, to make expiation for them, and to enter the Lists with Satan, and to suffer the punishments of our sins, before he made his Sacrifice, as I have instanced in the punishments that men do voluntarily undergo when they strive for the Mastery with their opposite Champion. 2 Hence it follows by the right Translation and Exposition of Isa. 53. 6. and Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant made between the Trinity for man's Redemption, by the sufferings, It is evident by Isa. 53. 6. & by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity, for man's Redemption▪ and by the death and sacrifice of Christ. Mr. Rutherford of the Covenant proves by eleven Arguments, in page 290. and by a twelfth Argument, in page 307. and by a thirteenth Argument in page 316. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity. The Dialogue saith thus, in page 28. The true manner how the Lord laid all our sins upon Christ (in Isa. 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 Leu. 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 bore 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 public sacrifices to procure a legal Atonement for the sins of all Israel; and so Christ bore our sins, because he made his soul a Sacrifice by his Priestly power, by which he procured his Father's Atonement for all our sins formally. 2 In the Dialogue, in page 25. I have showed, how Christ may be said to bear our sins several other ways, 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 Christ's bearing sin, was thereby fully intended, you conclude nothing. Reply 2. The Dialogues instances do make it appear plain enough to the willing to be informed, That the manner of Christ's bearing sin, was thereby fully intended; but to a biased spirit it is not easy 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 be a truth, that God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice, therefore say we, 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 Christ's bearing our sins as our Priestly Mediator may be found, because it was typified by the Priests eating of the people's Sin-offering (as Mediators) in the holy place, as the Dialogue hath truly expounded Leu. 10. 17. for their eating signified such a communion as Mediators must have between both parties in the work of Atonement. And secondly, The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice; and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah, He poured out his soul to death, and bore 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 doubtless 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 merely intended to amuse the Reader; The Dialogue shows plainly that all these three terms are metaphorical Synonimas, being all joined 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 God's Atonement. 3 By the eternal efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice, he makes continual intercession for us, and so he doth still bear our sins by his continual interceding God's Atonement: 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 Christ's sacrifice was effectual to procure Atonement, therefore sin was not imputed to him: A mere non sequitur: Nay the contrary consequence is true; Christ (saith he) 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 labours to prove that Christ bore our sins by God's imputation, by Heb. 9 26. 28. Heb. 9 26. 28 Christ appeared, that is (saith he) was manifested in the flesh; he little minded the Context, in saying that his appearing here, did signify his manifesting in the flesh, for it is easy to be discerned that his appearing here, doth signify his appearing before Dan. 9 24. God with his sacrifice for sin (and that was three and thirty years 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 he 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 Trespass (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 clothing; and than it follows in Paul's 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, carry, 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 he answers himself to what he 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 Christ's 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 Christ's bearing our sins was fully intended by this Text to be by God's 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 showed in the Dialogue. 1 I have showed that Christ in his conflict with Satan, bore our sins as a Porter bears a burden, as it is in 1 Pet. 2. 24. according to Gen. 3. 15. But secondly, In Heb. 9 24. He bears our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice, when he died formally by his own Priestly power, by this sacrifice he procured God's Atonement, by which our sins are formally born away from us; And saith the Apostle, Unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation; namely, He shall appear the second time, without being made a Sacrifice for sin, unto salvation, which is thus opened by the coherence of the Chapter in vers. 12. Neither by the blood of Goats, Bucks, and Bulls, but by his own blood, he went once for all into the holy place, having found eternal Redemption for us; and therefore he comes not the second time to be offered in sacrifice for sins, but he shall come without 〈◊〉 Sin-sacrifice unto eternal salvation, as I have showed in Ch. 3. in expounding Gal. 4. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The person that brought his sacrifice was to put his hand upon the head thereof, yet living, Leu. 1. 4. as confessing his guilt, and putting, or imputing it upon the Beast to be sacrificed. Compare Exod. 29. 10. Leu. 4. 4, 29. and 5. 5, 6. and 16. 21. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands, sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation, and the stoning of the offender, Deut. 17. 7. Gild thus typically imputed to the beast, it was slain, and laid upon the Altar. Reply 6. The Dialogue hath clearly showed in page 33. That the act of imposing hands on the head of the sacrifice, did typify Prov: 2●. 13. the owner's faith of dependence on the true Sacrifice, that he confessing and forsaking his sins should have God's mercy, namely, through the true Sacrifice he should have Gods merciful Atonement and Reconciliation. But saith Mr. Norton in page 234. It is disproved that their laying on of hands did typify their relying upon the Sacrifice of Christ for such Atonement. Reply 7. I cannot as yet find it disproved, and I have showed in the Dialogue, That the laying on of hands did typify their faith of dependence in relying on the Sacrifice of Christ, as the meritorious procuring cause of God's Atonement; If so, than it did not signify Gods imputing our sins to Christ; and therefore that inference is a false inference, and no disproving of the Dialogue. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands, sin was charged, both for the testifying of the accusation, and the stoning of the offender, Deut. 17. 7. Reply 8. This is another false inference, for the accusation The Imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testify their saith, that the evidence they had given in against him was true. Deut. 17. 7. was testified before his condemnation, or else he could not have been condemned, and that was done without any imposition of hands; therefore this act of the witnesses in laying on their hands on the head of the condemned person, was rather to testify their own personal faith and confidence to the Throwers of stones, that the testimony they had formerly given was true. And thus Mr. Nortons' Instance is a strong confutation of his kind of legal imputation, as to the point of condemnation; for this Imposition was not ordained to signify the imputation of his sin before his sentence of condemnation. 2 As for the Imposition of hand● upon the Beast to be slain in Sacrifice, together with confession of sin, It is clear by that confession that sin was imputed to him that confessed it (and not to the Beast) and in that respect, he presented his clean Beast to be sacrificed, to reconcile God to him for his sin which he had confessed, and his imposition of hands testified his faith of dependence on his typical sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement for his Ceremonial sins, and typified his faith of dependence on Christ the true Sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement for his moral sins. But I will not enlarge further here, because the Dialogue is full in this point, where the impartial Reader may find satisfaction. The Dialogue saith thus: If you will build the common Doctrine of Imputation upon this phrase, The Lord hath laid all our iniquities upon Christ; then by the same phrase you must affirm that the Father laid all our sins upon himself, by imputing all our sins to himself, because the Father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ, in Psal. 32. 1. and Psal. 25. 18. Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 46. This is but one place of very many, whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded. Reply 9 The Reader may please to take notice of this confession; but why then doth himself make so much use of this Scripture to prove his kind of Imputation, seeing now at last he grants it to be no sure proof; for saith he, This is but one place of very many, whereon the doctrine of Imputation is builded; and yet I find it as much used for that purpose as any Scripture, except 2 Cor. 5. 21. 2 The Dialogue doth not deny, but affirm, that Christ bore our sins, both as a Porter bears a burden, in his conflict with Satan, according to Gods declared will, in Gen. 3. 15. and also as our Priestly Mediator in procuring God's Atonement for our sins by his propitiatory Sacrifice. The Dialogue also affirmeth that God the Father bears, or bears away our sins as a reconciled supreme, by acquitting us of our sins upon satisfaction received by the said propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ; But Mr. Norton makes a wrong sense of the Dialogue in this point, as if the Dialogue held that the Creditor paid the debt, because he is said to discharge the Debtor. But I refer the Reader for satisfaction to my Reply to what Reconciliation is, in Chap. 14. etc. But saith Mr. Norton in page 46. Sure you mistake yourself in arguing out of this Text from the word Nasa, for Nasa i● not in the Text. Reply 10. I never said that Nasa was in this Text of Isa. 53. 6. I cited Nasa only from Psal. 32. 1. and from Psal. 25. 18. where the Father is said to bear our sins; and from thence the Dialogue doth reason to our translated term in Isa. 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all. And hence the Dialogue doth reason thus, If this phrase [of laying up●●] and so consequently of bearing, in Isa. 53. 6. doth imply that Christ did bear the guilt of our sins by God's imputation, then by that phrase the Father must bear the guilt of our sins also, for he is said to bear our sins in Ps. 32. 1. and in Ps. 25. 18. This Argument is unavoidably true, by building the doctrine of Imputation upon that phrase. 2 By this nimble catch of Mr. Nortons', he would ●ave th●● Reader to believe that the Dialogue holds that which it holds not; but I have more fully answered to this cavil in Chap. 12. Sect. 1. and there I have showed how Mr. Norton hath wronged the sense of the Dialogue in other places also. But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is a difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ, and an act testifying our faith concerning God's imputation of sin unto Christ; And saith he, You should have produced your Expositors, for they do not generally so speak. Reply 11. This speech they do not generally so speak, is an acknowledgement that some do so speak: And indeed many late Writers do say, That imposition of hands, with confession of sin, did typify Gods imputing our sins to Christ. See Taylor on Types; and Weams on the Ceremonial Laws, saith thus on the Sin-offering, They were commanded to lay their hands upon the head of the Sin-offering, Lev 4. to signify, that they laid over their sins upon the Beast, which was a type of Christ, who was made (Asham) an offering for sin, Isa. 53. 10. and was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is, The guilt of our sins was imputed to him; he was not made a sacrifice only for our sins, but he was made sin for us. In these words of Mr. Weams, and more also which I omit, he hath not a word of our faith of dependence, which was truly typified by Imposition of hands, but he doth only say that it typified Gods imputing our sins. I could cite many others that run that way, on Exod. 29. 10. etc. but I had rather (though they be obvious) cover their names, than publish them. But the Dialogue in page 33. disproves their Exposition thus: A private man's Imposition cannot represent God's act; The Imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot, because the Elders action represents the Church's action; neither can the Imposition of the Priests, and the High Priests, because they were types of Christ's Priestly Nature, and not of the Father. Mr. Norton returns this Answer in page 49. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged, yet they are impertinent, as not reaching the mind of Expositors, at least general upon the place. Reply 12. It is an easy answer to say they are impertinent, but the indifferent Reader may see they are pertinent. 2 Saith he, Expositors, at least generally, do not so expound; I wish that fewer did: but I do also confess that I do not find (though I have made diligent inquiry) that any of the Ancient Divines did hold, that God imputed our sins to Christ, in Mr. Nortons' sense, as I have showed in the next Chapter; yea I find that many late Writers also have no such imputation, but too many have, some I have named, and many more are obvious to the intelligent; and it is evident, that generally the Antinomians do hold as Mr. Norton holds: I say it is obvious to the intelligent, that many do make the imposition of hands on the head of the sacrifice, with confession of sin, to signify Gods imputing our sins to Christ; and therefore the reasons of the Dialogue , are sound and good, for what they are alleged, namely, That imposition of hands by the said persons, could not represent God's action. But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing, but that the act of a private person was capable (if God so pleased) to become a type of God's act, which is also true concerning the Elders and Priests. Reply 13. It is well he hath put in, If God so pleased, I say to him, as he said to me, in page 103. if he should not put in that, he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence, etc. But he had spoken more full to the point, if he had proved, that God had ordained such persons in that act of Atonement to represent God the Father; but because he doth no more but barely say so, it will not satisfy a doubting conscience. But saith Mr. Norton in page 50. The act of an Israelite (though a private person) in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing, either at the seventh year, Exod. 21. 2. or at the year of Jubilee, Exod. 25. 40. figured, or represented, God the Father's gift of free Redemption by Jesus Christ. Reply 14. Good reason there is for it, because God ordained it so to be, and therein the Master being also a Father to his servant, in letting his servant go free, was a type of the father of mercies in that case. 2 As to his instance of Cyrus, in making him both a type of Christ, in page 101. and also a type of the Father, in his 50 page, by his free deliverance, is a very doubtful instance, for it is questioned by learned Divines whether he were a type; but in case it were proved that he was indeed a type, yet it reacheth not to prove that all those that imposed hands on the head of their sacrifice were types of Gods imputing our sins to Christ, which is the very point on Mr. Nortons' part to be proved, but he slides from that to instances of by matters. But saith the Dialogue. If you make the act of laying on of hands on the Sin-offering, to signify Gods laying our sins upon Christ by his imputation, than the same act with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat, must also signify that God did impute our sins to Christ, as well after he was escaped from death by his Resurrection and Ascension, as when he made his oblation here upon earth; And so by this Doctrine, Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven. 2 The Dialogue propounds another Argument which Mr. Norton skips over, and that is this: If you make this imposition of hands upon the head of the Sin-offering to represent Gods laying the sins of the Elect upon Christ by his imputation, than the same act of imposition upon the head of their sacrifices of praise, must have the same signification; for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon the head of his sacrifice of praise, with confession of his particular mercies received: This act must needs signify the laying of their persons by their faith of dependence on the sacrifice of Christ for the procuring of God's favourable acceptation of their praises, and therefore their laying on of hands on the head of their Sin-offering, did likewise signify their faith of dependence on Christ typified. Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 51. We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ. Reply 15. This is a good confession, and I wish that others would take full notice of it, namely, that there is not a suffient ground from the typical act of imposition of hands on the sacrifice with confession of sin, to typify Gods imputing our sins to Christ; and therefore it follows hence, that the translated phrase, The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all, in Isa. 53. 6. is not a sufficient proof of it, though it be alleged for that purpose. 2 Seeing Mr. Norton doth at last make this confession, why then hath he laboured to defend the imputation of sin from the said imposition of hands, with confession of sin, as he hath done? But saith Mr. Norton in page 51. Sin was laid upon the Scape-goat, not after, but before its escape. Reply 16. If sin was imputed at all to the Scape-goat, it is sure enough that it must be 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 typify that Christ doth still bear our sins by God's imputation in heaven, as much as on earth: But saith the Dialogue, The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typify Gods imputing our sins to Christ; but on the contrary, they understood it to be a typical sign of their faith of dependence, depending upon Christ's sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement 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, he said thus, O Lord, make Atonement now for the sins, and for the iniquities, and for the trespasses of thy people Israel. See Ains. in Leu. 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 God's Atonement for all our iniquities. Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith, That this act shown 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 he would have forborn a needless 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 Leu. 16. 21. for his own judgement, but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him, as I shown in the Dialogue page 39 and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have showed 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 we 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 Tenants as they do; they despise the imputed righteousness of Christ (saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations, page 318.) and they jest at this, that one should be punished (in a legal way) for another's 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 God's imputation, as ever he bore them upon earth. Elect to Christ was the (meritorious) cause of God's 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 bore 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 satisfy 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 canceled, doubtless 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 bore our sins here on earth by God's imputation, than he doth still bear our sins in heaven by God's imputation; for he 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 be discharged, and the Bill canceled, doubtless 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 canceled the Bill, the sinner is free from all sin, ipso facto, and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at God's 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 showed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons', If the Debtor be discharged, and the Bill canceled, then doubtless the Surety ●s free, seems to be drawn from Col. 2. 14. (as he 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, nailing it to the Cross. I say, his conclusion from this Scripture, is a gross 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 be discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that believe 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 putrefaction 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 still bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession, as much as ever he did when he was here upon earth, as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly show, 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, than our Redemption had been perfect at once; but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem, therefore it was agreed, that we should have our Redemption but by degrees; and therefore we must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed, as I have showed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows, that this legal Court-way, in making Christ a legal Surety, & so liable to suffer the eternal curse from God's legal imputation, etc. is none of God's way in point of satisfaction (as I have often noted, to have it the better marked, and searched into) but it was the Devil's way to make Christ a legal sinner, and to that purpose he stirred up false witness to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations, and then he stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Cross; and hence some infer (to admiration) that when Pilate sat on his Tribunal, God sat on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse; as if pilate's Court-proceedings, were a type of God the Father's Court-proceedings; but I have oft noted, that God's way was to commissionate Satan to be Christ's Combater, and to affect him to his utmost skill, and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice, and obedience. Conclusion. Hence it follows, that neither the phrase, The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all, in Isa. 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering, with confession of sin, in Leu. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Leu. 4. 4. and 5. 5, 6. and Leu. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings, much less of suffering Hell-torments, as Mr. Norton doth most boldly, and groundlessly affirm, for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted. CHAP. XIV. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined. Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us, as we were made righteousness, that is, saith he, by judicial imputation, without the violation, yea with the establishing of justice. 2 That Christ was made sin, as he was made a curse, Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used, and there, are the same: But (saith he) he was made a curse by judicial imputation, because he was the Sin-offering in truth, therefore he was made sin by real imputation, as the legal Sin-offering, was made sin by typical imputation. Reply 1. MR. Nortons' first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons. 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text, because he makes Christ to be made sin for us by God's imputation, in the same manner as we are made righteous by the righteousness of Christ, for he means it of the righteousness of Christ, and so he opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places, that we are made righteous by the righteousness of Christ imputed; but any one that hath eyes in his head, may see, that the righteousness expressed in the Text, is called the righteousness of God, and not the righteousness of Christ, therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly, the righteousness expressed is not the righteousness of God essentially, as Mr. Norton makes it to be in page 230. but the righteousness of God the Father personally (and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of believing sinners is the work of the Trinity, because they have an order of working in the several causes) and this is most clear and evident, because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ, from verse 19, to the end of verse 21. For, saith the Apostle in verse 19 God was in Christ, thereby plainly noting too distinct persons. I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousness of God, for the righteousness of Christ, in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erroneous interpretation. mistaken the word God, for the word Christ, before him, but had he been well advised, he might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched, not only into the words, but also into the sense of this Text, and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousness of God, from the righteousness of Christ, and then he might have been better advised, then to confound the righteousness of God with the righteousness of Christ, as he doth without distinction, in page 230. and elsewhere. But thirdly, in case the righteousness of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places, had been meant of the righteousness of Christ, as Mr. Norton doth make it, than the Text should have run thus, God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of Christ in him; that is to say, That we might be made the righteousness of Christ in Christ; and then according to this interpretation, the word God must be blotted out of the Text, and the word Christ put into the place of it: But I believe that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it, and therefore by the same reason he should abhor to expound the righteousness of God to be no other but the righteousness of Christ, especially, seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinner's righteousness, or justification, or reconciliation, as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinner's justification or reconciliation. I grant, that Christ is our righteousness in the meritorious cause, Rom. 5. 18. but I say also, that it is God the Father's righteousness, that is the formal cause of our righteousness. 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intent any comparison here; and he doth also give two reasons, why the righteousness of God cannot be meant of the righteousness of Christ in this Text, to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction, de Reconc. Peccatoris, part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5, 6. SECT. II. 2 I Will now labour to show the true sense of this Text, by which it will appear, that Mr. Nortons' comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text: each clause in the Text lies thus: 1 [For] This word For is a causal particle, and implies for this cause. 2 He: namely, God the Father. 3 Made: that is to say, Ordained, Constituted, Appointed: but this could not be without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity; and so he was ordained, or constituted to be made a curse by his combating with Satan, as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him: that is to say, Christ; These two words, He and Him in the former part of this verse, and God and Him, in the latter part of this verse, must carefully be marked, as a clear distinction between the persons, as I have also noted above. 5 To be sin for us: that is to say, To be 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 be 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 we translate it thus, It is a Sin-offering, we add the word Offering to the word Sin, as the Hebrew text also sometimes doth, though very rarely, as in Leu. 6. 26. and Leu. 9 15. the Priest that offereth it for sin; this is very near 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. Leu. 4. 3. 8, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33. Leu. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 Leu. 6. 17, 25, 30. Leu. 7. 7, 27. Le. 8. 2, 14. Leu. 9 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22: Leu. 10. 16, 17, 19 Leu. 12. 6, 8. Leu. 14. 13, 19, 22, 31. Leu. 15. 15, 30. Leu. 16, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 25, 27. Leu. 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 chief it was to expiate their ceremonial sins, as the places cited do witness. These Scriptures do stare in the face of such as make Christ to be 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 God's legal imputation, and yet notwithstanding, though he was every way free, God did let Satan lose upon him, as upon a Malefactor, to combat with his humane nature, to ensnare him in some sin or other, and to impute sin to him, and so to pierce him in the Footsoals 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 God's formal imputation of sin, but voluntarily as a Combater with Satan, without any formal guilt or desert on his part. And secondly, He bore our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice, by procuring Reconciliation, and therefore he is said in Isa. 53. 10. to make himself Asham, a Trespass, or Sin, as the Septuagint translate it. And thus you see, that Christ made himself to be sin, as much as God made him to be sin, namely, to be a sacrifice for sin, and no otherwise, as I have showed in the Dialogue in page 42. 7 The reason or the end why God made him to be sin, is It is the righteousness of each person i● 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 righteousness of God] and this doth call to our consideration the Covenant between the Trinity for man's 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 combat with Satan, 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 he had performed the said Sin-sacrifice, it is truly called His righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. and this is the true and full interpretation of the word Righteousness in that Text. 2 On the other hand the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father, was, that upon the performance of Christ's sacrifice, he would be reconciled to believing sinners, and the performance of this reconciliation on God the Father's part, is called the Righteousness 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. verse: 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 God's righteousness; for according to his Covenant with Christ, it is his righteousness to be 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 righteousness 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 God's legal imputation, as Mr. Norton holds. Chapter, and in Chap. 13. and what I say in this 14. Chapter, will satisfy the judicious and unpartial Reader. 2 Consider the frame of Mr. Nortons' Argument, and me thinks the very naming of it should sufficiently show the dangerousness of it. Christ saith, He was made sin for us, as we were made righteous (by the righteousness of Christ) that is (saith he) he was made sin by God's judicial imputation, namely, a true sinner formally; And so in like sort he holds, that Christ's righteousness 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 God's 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 show the dangerousness of it? 3 Mr. Anthony Wotton shows, that it is a palpable mistake to assert the imputation of our sins to Christ in the sense of Mr. Norton, in Reconcil. Peccatoris, part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 4. and to the end of the Chapter; of which I shall speak▪ more by and by. 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification, doth show 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 clear 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 pass for no better than a fiction. 2 The Dialogue shows 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 join the particle For to the word Sin, by which means he 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 itself by joying the word For, to the word Sin, The Sin shall be killed before the Lord, it is most holy, Leu. 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 God's imputation, it Leu. 6. 26. could not have been called, Most holy, neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin, Leu. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Leu. 9 15. Leu. 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 money is called Sin, than Christ was made sin only figuratively, consequently suffered for sin figuratively, not properly. Reply 3. A biased spirit is apt to pick an exception against the clearest 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 employed 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. etc. 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 chief the Sin-water was ordained, that being cleansed thereby, they might then approach to God's 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 employed (or part of it at least) to buy the public Sin-offerings, and Trespass-offerings, it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony, 2 King. 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32, 33. not because any sin or trespass was imputed to the money, as if it had been sinfully gotten, or sinfully employed, but because it was employed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings; and in this sense, God made Christ to be sin, and to be a trespass, 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 Trespass (offerings) and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself, and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousness 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 entering the Lists with Satan, but at last, he was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice, and in this Sin-offering he bore our sins not really by God's judicial imputation, but figuratively only, he bore them from us by procuring God's Reconciliation; No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton, doth make Christ to be a sinner properly. But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. We distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt, and an judicial guilt: If Thomas (saith he) be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently, though Peter be guiltless thereof inherently, yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally; it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate (in case of Suretyship) 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 be punished with the delinquency of another. Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius, Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nail home on the head, and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning, and truly so he 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 another's debt, hath engaged himself, suffers evil: Sponde N●x● praesto est. But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise, as he who is become surety for a buyer, is not properly bound by the bargain, but by his promise; So also he who is bound for a Delinquent, is not held by the delinquency, but by his engagement: And hence it is, that the evil to be born by him, receives its measure not from the fault of the other, but from the power which himself had in promising: Consequent whereunto is this (according to the opinion which we believe to be the Truer) That no man can by his becoming surety lose his * Man's Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes. Vide Pan●rmitan. Rubri. de fide jussoribus, nor for judicial corporal pains. vide digest. l. 2. tit. i●. Si quis cautionibus, lege quotiens. And saith Mamony, The Judges are warned that they take no ransom of the Murderer, though he could give all the wealth in the world, and though the avenger of blood should be willing to free him; for the soul of him that is killed, is not the possession of the avener of blood, but the possession of the holy blessed God. See Ains. in Num. 35. 31. Ex. 21. 25. Leu. 24. 19 Ps. 49. 8. None have a true legal power over their own life but God, and the Magistrate, to whom God gives power over Delinquents. life, because we determine no man hath such right over his own life, that he can take it from himself, or engage it to be taken away by another, though the Ancient Romans and Greeks were of another mind in this matter. (But it seems the latter Romans saw the inconvenience of their Ancestors Customs, and therefore they made other Laws in opposition thereto. Vide Codic. lib. 9 Tit. 47. de poenis lege Sancimus.) And saith Grotius in the next page, what we have said of life ought to be understood of members too; for a man hath not right over them, but for the preservation of the body. But (saith he) If exile or loss of money were in the promise, and by the others fault the forfeiture was made, the Surety shall bear the loss, which yet in him, to speak exactly, will not be a punishment, etc. Ibidem, And (saith he) because Beasts are not properly guilty of a fault; when a beast is put to death (as in the Law of Moses for copulation with man, Leu. 20. 15.) that is not truly punishment, but the use of man's dominion over the beast. Then he proceeds to show in Chap. 113. that none is justly punished, (in propriety of speech) for another's fault. None (saith he) that is free from the fault can be punished for the fault of another, because the obligation to punishment ariseth from merit, and merit is personal, having its original from the will, than which nothing is more ours, whence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in Chap. 78. he doth distinguish upon the word punishment, properly so called (and improperly so called) punishment in general (saith he) is the evil of passion which is inflicted for the evil of action; To be kept from Assemblies, or functions, are not properly punishments, although for a certain similitude, and abusively they are so called. Hierax defined Justice to be an exacting of punishment from offenders: And (saith he) punishment properly so named must be rendered to some * Vide Codic. l. 9 'tis 74 de poenis lege Sancimus. There the Emperors Arcadius, and Honerius say thus, We appoint that punishment shall be there where the fault i●; let offences bind their committers, and let no fear of punishment extend further than to such as are guilty of crime. And ●o this purpose speaks P. Martyr in Jud. 2. Eze 18. 20. offence. This is also noted by Austin: All punishment (saith he) if it be just, is the punishment of sin; and in Chap. 113. Grotius citys Austin thus; God himself should be unjust, if he should condemn any one guiltless, Job 34. 23. Ibidem: God indeed threatens to punish the iniquities of the Fathers upon the children; But (saith he) he hath a most full right of Dominion, as over our goods, so over our lives too, being his gift, which without any cause, and at any time, he can take away from any one at his pleasure. But (saith he) men may not imitate that vengeance of God: The reason is not alike, because we have said, God without regard of the fault hath right over the life; men have not, but upon some great crime, and such as is the persons own; Wherefore that same Divine Law, as it forbids Parents to be put to death for their children, so it forbids children to be put to death for the deeds of their Parents; which Law pious Kings have followed even in the case of Treason, Deut. 24. 16. 2 King. 14. 6. And (saith he) at ult. An heir that is liable to others debts, is not liable to the punishment of the deceased; for though the heir doth bear the person of the deceased in respect of goods which are engaged, yet not in respect of merits which are properly personal. From these speeches of Grotius it follows; 1 That he did believe it to be the truer opinion; That no man can by his becoming Surety lose his life, because no man hath right over his own life; and therefore those humane examples of taking away the life of Sureties for the faults of others, though they pass for good justice in Mr. Nortons' opinion, yet not in Grotius opinion being rectified, nor in the Scriptures, and therefore Mr. Norton hath laboured in vain to make Grotius his abettor in this. 2 Hence it follows, that seeing Grotius held this as a principle, that the obligation to punishment doth arise from merit, and that merit is personal, having its original from the will, that he could not hold (as Mr. Norton doth) that Christ was made legally guilty of our sins by God's imputation. 3 Hence it follows, That the punishments that Christ suffered were not, in true propriety of speaking, legal punishments, because true legal punishments must be inflicted for personal faults; and therefore he could not hold that Christ suffered any punishments from Gods vindicative wrath. 4 Hence it follows, That the punishments which Christ suffered, are so called by a certain similitude, but not properly; the wounds received in the trial of Masteries from the opposite Champion, are improperly called punishments; no sufferings are properly punishments, but such as are legally inflicted for Delinquency. 5 Hence it follows, That the punishments which Christ suffered, were not inflicted on him from God's legal and vindicative wrath; but he suffered them from his voluntary combat with Satan, and his Instruments, as I have at large showed in Chap. 16. and in divers other places. 6 Hence it is evident, That Christ could not in true propriety of speech be our legal Surety, in Grotius judgement, jointly bound with us to fulfil the Law, and suffer the Curse, and so to pay our full debt in kind, as Mr. Norton holds. 7 I grant, notwithstanding, that Christ may improperly be called our Surety, because he did of his own accord undertake the combat with Satan, and his Instruments, for our redemption; and by his constant patience and obedience to the death, he overcame them all, and at last in the perfection of his obedience he made his soul a sacrifice, by which he obtained the prize, even the Redemption of all the Elect; and thus he broke the Devil's Headplot as our voluntary Surety, but this kind of voluntary Surety, is as far distant from Mr. Nortons' legal Surety as a free Redeemer, is from a delinquent Surety. 8 Hence it follows also, that in Grotius judgement, there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters, and a Surety in criminal cases; but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction, or else he would never have brought the instance of Paul's engaging to Philemon, verse 18. to exemplify Christ's obligation to his Philemon v. 11 punishments. 9 Hence it follows, That though a man may lay down his life for others, as voluntary Sureties, in divers cases (as Mr. Weams shows in his four Degenerations, page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties. But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation, is not a doctrine of late days only; The Reader that pleaseth, may be fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius, who at the end of his defence of the Catholic Faith, concerning the satisfaction of Christ, against Socinus, hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose, from Irenaeus, Anno Christ. 180. until Bernard, who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius, and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation, seeing they differ from him, as much as truth doth from error. Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon. pec. part. 2. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds, and yet he doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held. If (saith he) any man say, That by accounting Christ a sinner, they mean no more, but that God deals with him, as if he did account him to be a sinner (this, though it be true, would not avail them; for thereby they overthrew the foundation that they laid, That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin, except he were first made guilty of our sins) such an imputation of our sins to Christ, I think no Divine will deny: I am sure (saith he) it hath warrant enough from the Fathers. And in Sect. 11. he citys some of the Father's speaking thus, He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner, and to die as one accursed; For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree. Chrysost. in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Theophilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith, He made him subject to death for us, and to die, as if he had been a notorious offender. And (saith he) in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture; for whereas it is said in Isa. 53. 12. Isa. 53. 12. He was numbered with the Transgressor's. This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying, and it showeth men's dealing with him, and not God's opinion of him: And with him they crucified two Thiefs, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left; and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the Transgressor's, Mark. 15. 27, 28. Mar. 15. 27, 28 And (saith he) in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines, than that he took on him to expiate for our sins, by his blood and sacrifice according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore we may conclude, that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, might be a sacrifice for sin, or die as a sinner, although our sins were not so imputed to him, that God accounted him to be guilty of them. And (saith he) in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear, because his sacrifice was such as might be without such imputation; for it was the price of our Redemption, as I shown in part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5, 6. But there may well be, and ordinarily is, Redemption by a price, without any kind of imputation; And you may also see what he speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton, the Judicious may please to take notice, that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things: 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture, than such as he hath cited out of chrysostom and Theophilact. 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Fathers. 3 Let me add this Testimony of Mr. Wotton, both from my own knowledge, and from the testimony of other eminent Christians, that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity, one that suffered much for Christ, through the iniquity of the times, a man of great reading in all kind of Writers, both Ancient and Modern, and a man of deep judgement; And his book of Reconciliation, was printed in his old age, after much debate, and study, and revising; and therefore what he saith in this point of imputation, ought not, and will not be slighted of the Judicious. The wise will understand. 4 Hence it follows, That the Reader that pleaseth, may yet be more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius, that this affirmation of Mr. Wotton's is a manifest truth, namely, That our sins were not otherwise imputed to Christ, but as he bore our punishments in his body on the Tree, according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows, That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus, because (as I perceive by several Writers) Socinus denied Christ's sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christ's satisfaction. 6 On the other hand, I do also believe that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons' kind of imputation, as he did Socinus Tenent; for I have showed in my former Reply, that Grotius held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit, and that merit is personal. Secondly, It is further evident, that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons' kind of imputation, because he doth oppose the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the formal cause of our justification; for thus he saith, The righteousness Grotius in his Appendix to God, and his Providence, p. 83. 96. and in his War & Peace part. 1. ch. 36. which they call imputative, the mere devices of men are thrust upon us, instead of divine Dictates: And (saith he) in his War and Peace, The death of Christ was not determined by any Law, but by a special Covenant; But Mr. Norton holds, that both the Incarnation, and the Death of Christ, was legal obedience, quite contrary to Grotius. These things considered, I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius; surely if he will still hold to Grotius, than he must first renounce his own Tenants, for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons' comparative Arguments, cited in the beginning of this Chapter. 7 Hence also it followeth, that the imputation of our sins to 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. No●ton, is a doctrine but of late days. days (though now it is grown somewhat common) for as it is affirmed by Mr. Wotton, it was not known in the days 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 be 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 he set, made, or put himself, to be Asham, a Gild, or a Trespass 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 he 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 likeness 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 guilty sinner as much as ever h●s Father did. as well as his Father, seeing he 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 margin 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 Trespass, 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 be sin for us by imputing all our sins and trespasses to him as the obligation to his suffering of our curse from God's vindicative wrath; then from the same kind of phrase it doth necessarily follow, that Christ made himself to be Asham, a Trespass, a guilt, or sin, by his legal imputing of our sins to himself; and so by the same rule of Court-justice, he 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 he 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 be found to excuse Christ from this vindicative act of justice, than 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 he 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 not otherwise make himself to be a Trespass, a guilt, or sin, but as he made himself to be a Trespasse-offering, and a Sin-offering, by which offering once for all, he ended Trespass (offerings) and finished Sin (offerings) and thereby made Reconciliation for iniquity (or reconciled God to believing sinners) and so brought in (or procured) an eternal Righteousness, 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 tindal's Works in p. 4●9. and Frith in p. 13●. in Leu. 8. and almost every where (saith he) The Beast offered for sin, is called Sin; which use of speaking (saith he) 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 bore our sins on his back, and because our sins are consumed, and made no sins through him, If we forsake our sins, and believe 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 he in page 160. Christ is no sinner, but a satisfaction, and an offering for sin: And saith he, in page 439. Consider and mark how the Kid or Lamb must be without spot or blemish, and so only 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. norton's Tenent, as by the places cited out of him in Chapter 6. may be soon seen. 2 John Frith, and Dr. Barns, whose works are joined 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 citys Fulgentius de fide, thus, In those carnal sacrifices in the time of the Law, was a signification of the flesh of Christ, which he 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 he, by way of Paraphrase, he was counted and deemed as a sinner, because that in his unjust suffering, In his Com. pl. p 1026. he might justly save sinners that believe in him. And saith he, the most part of the learned Expositors be of this mind, and he doth not paraphrase on Augustine's, words, as some do, in relation to Mr. norton's 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 be 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 chrysostom 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 fit there; yet there is the less fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good. These two ways do the Ancient Divines say, That Christ was made sin. First, as he was made a sacrifice for sin. And secondly, as he 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. Ap●. 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 he 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) he 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 he) that Christ was made a sinner, God forbidden; Mark, that he puts a God forbidden upon such a speech. In his seven Candlesticks, p. 35●. 9 Saith Dr. Williams, Christ took all our blameless infirmities, and not our sinful infirmities; but Luther saith he, makes him the greatest Thief, etc. It is better (saith he) to cover his nakedness as Sem and Japhet did Noah's, then disclose it in Gath etc. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement; for in page 92. he doth publish Luther's 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 he, 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 Thief, a Liar, a Drunkard, etc. 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 he concludes as Mr. Norton doth, That God did impute both these to Christ; First, Our sin●; And secondly, Our guilt: And for the proof of this, he citys 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 show his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh, in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else, saith he, but that he was subject unto heat, cold, hunger, thirst, contumelies, and death, for these saith he, are the effects of sin; and therefore, saith he, the flesh of Christ, might well be 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 O●gen, Melanctho●, Bucer, Calven, Percrius and Vatablus. Sin (saith he) after the Hebrew manner of speaking, is a sacrifice for 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 he 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 be held by any condition of our guiltiness, therefore treading all necessity under his feet, of his own accord, when he would, he admitted our death. In these words he saith plainly, that Christ was no way guilty of our sins, as the obligation to his death and sufferings, but that he admitted death from the voluntary cause only. He doth point blank oppose Mr. norton's Tenent. Ibidem, We all die against our wills, because we are tied to the debt of enduring punishment by the condition of our sin; but he that was entangled with no fault, could not be bound to any penalty by necessity, yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it, in mercy and pity to us, he 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 myself. In these words he 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 he died willingly, and only in body, he meriteth for us life and righteousness. He writes against Mr. Nortons' imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christ's suffering Hell-torments, as if he had seen his book. Ibidem, Had not Christ died voluntarily, his death (saith he) had not been meritorious; how much more unworthily he died, that had not deserved death, so much more justly (man) liveth for whom he died; what justice, thou wilt ask, is this, That an Innocent should die for a Malefactor? It is no justice, it is mercy; if it were justice, than should he not die freely, but indebted thereto; and if indebted, then indeed he should die, but the other for whom he died should not live; yet though it be not justice, it is not against justice, otherwise he could not be both just and merciful. If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ, as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter, and compare them with these words of Bernard, he may see as direct an opposition as is possible. Hence I conclude, That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard, which is near a thousand year's space, were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons' kind of imputing our sins to Christ, to make him guilty of his death and sufferings; and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late days. SECT. V The second thing to be examined in 2 Cor. 5▪ 21. is touching the word Righteousness, which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument, doth make to be the Righteousness of Christ. BUt I have already showed, that this word Righteousness, is not meant of Christ's Righteousness, but of God the Father's Righteousness, for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners, as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part, which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation. The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Satan's Headplot. Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Priest. First, to combat with Satan. God's forgiveness, is the formal cause of a sinners' righteousness. And secondly, to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation, and the performance of this is called his Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly, God the Father covenanted to be reconciled, and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ; and his performance of this, is here called, The Righteousness of God the Father. And thirdly, The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ, that so they might be the fit subjects of the said Righteousness. 2 I grant, that the righteousness of God may be distinguished into many other senses, as Mr. Wotton hath showed, the Reconcil. pec. part. 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must be considered according to the context in each place where it is used; but in this place, God's reconciling the world to himself, by not imputing their sins to them, as it is expressed in verse 19 i● called the righteousness of God in this 21. verse, because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator, for the completing of a sinner's righteousness that is in Christ. The Reconciliation mentioned (saith Mr. Ball) in 2 Cor. 5. 19 Ball on the Covenant, p. 219. is explained by the non-imputation, or remission of sins; a● lest (saith he) it is one part or branch of Reconciliation, which is a transient act conferred in time, and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified, or reconciled, and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man, the Scripture speaketh not. In these words the Reader may please to take notice, that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification, in the party justified or reconciled; and so he makes justification to be the first part or branch of reconciliation, as Mr. Wotton doth. And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9, 10. Rom. 5. 9, 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God, and justification by Christ's blood, for the same thing merited by Christ's sacrifice. These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us, that God's righteousness procured by the Sin-sacrifice of Christ, in v. 21. is the same, or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God, which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19 by his not imputing sin, and the performance of that reconciliation, or non-imputation of sin; on God's part, for the sake of Christ's Sin-sacrifice, is called the righteousness of God the Father, in this 21. verse; and this exposition of the righteousness of God, any indifferent Reader may see to be clearly meant by the context, though I should say no more. But I will yet further evidence, that this exposition of God's righteousness, is no new upstart exposition, but that it hath the concurrence, and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines. 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus: Now resteth to see what is the righteousness of God, and it may thus be defined. It is an Absolution from sins, by faith, through Christ. And (saith he) that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution, we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin. Sin is a defect, or falling away, from the Law and Will of God; And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation. Wherefore, when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltiness is taken away, A man is absolved from his sins. Ibidem, Now by these things (saith he) it is manifest what Absolution is, It is an action of God (the Father) whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins, that is, from guiltiness and obligation to eternal death. But (saith he in the second place) that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert, therefore it is added, through Christ. And (saith he in the third place) that we should not be ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applied to every one of us, it is added, by faith. This definition (saith he) is a great help to the right understanding of justification; and this righteousness, Paul saith, Is the righteousness of God. Ibidem, And (saith he) the Commentaries which are ascribed unto Jer●m, do herein very well agree; They are not subject to the righteousness of God; that is (saith he) the absolution of sins. (And le●t we should in our thoughts mistake the true nature of this righteousness of God, whereby he makes sinners that are in Christ, righteous, he gives this special caution to be marked.) Ibidem, By these things (saith he) let us gather that this righteousness of God is far distant from the righteousness that is known by nature; for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other Righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind; not that they were ignorant of absolution, or of the pacifying of God, for that thing did their Sacrifices ●estifie. But this pacifying of God, they did not call our righteousness, neither ever understood they the true pacifying of God, nor wherein it consisted. Thus far P. Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. he had spoken of the Righteousness of God afore this, in Rom. 1. 17. and in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here; these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase, and therefore his best; for by this time he had the advantage of more ●eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning. And see what he saith further of God's Righteousness, which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly, Mr. Norton, de Reconc. pec. par. 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5▪ 21, doth comprehend the same Righteousness, which the Apostle may well say, is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ; The Righteousness of God. And (saith he) it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner. And in Sect. 5. (saith he) in the second place, I answer, That the righteousness of God in the places alleged, may fitly & rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins; for it is plain enough (saith he) that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification, which (saith he) I have taught is contained in Remission of sins, in par. 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God, because it is a righteousness approved by God. And indeed Calv. I●sti▪ l. 3. c. 11. n. 9 doth so interpret the righteousness of God, to be a righteousness that is approved of God. Thirdly, Mr. Bale on the Covenant, in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phillip 3. 9 and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins. By the Righteousness of God (saith he) understand remission of sins, and regeneration; and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited. Fourthly, Sedulius, in R●m. 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God (there) the remission of sins. Fifthly, Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God, in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews (saith he) were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that cometh of God, which is the Rom. 10. 3. See tindal's works, p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christ's blood, to all that repent and believe, And (saith he) in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness, they were disobedent to the Righteousness of God; which (saith he) is the forgiveness of sin in Christ's blood. And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shows first, How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father. Secondly, How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ. Thirdly, How we are justified by Faith. And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue. 1 (Saith he) When I say God justifieth us, understand thereby, that for Christ his sake, merit, and deservings only, he receiveth us unto his Mercy, Favor, and Grace, and forgiveth us our sins. 2 (Saith he) When I say Christ justifieth, understand thereby that Christ only hath redeemed us, and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God, and damnation, and with his works only hath purchased us the favour of God, and the forgiveness of sins. 3 When I say that Faith justifieth, understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God, and in the Mercy promised us for Christ's sake, and for his deservings only, doth quiet the conscience, and certify her that our sins are forgiven, and we in full favour of God. And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus, In his works, p. 187. The faith (saith he) of true believers, is, First, That God justifieth or forgiveth. Secondly, That Christ deserveth it. Thirdly, That Faith and trust in Christ's blood receiveth it, and certifieth the conscience thereof. And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus, God doth justify actively, that is to say, forgiveth us for full righteous. 2. Christ's love deserveth it, And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it, and certifieth the conscience thereof. Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue. And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth, and in the days of King Edward the Sixth, by the generality of the learned, and it hath been often printed, not only in his Books, but also in his Bible, in his Prologue to the Romans, and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places; though now this ancient received Truth, is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresy. And thus have I showed from five eminent Orthodox Divines, that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners, it nothing else but his reconciliation, as it is defined by the Apostle, by not imputing sin, in v. 19 which is also called the Righteousness of God, in ver. 21. And therefore it follows necessarily, that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse, according to the context, is this, 1 That God the Father (from the voluntary cause and Covenant) made, or constituted, Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us; namely, to procure God's Reconciliation for us. 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma (not Dicaiosune) the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ, because it was his obedience to God's positive Law and Covenant, and not because it was his moral obedience, as Mr. Norton doth misinterpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part, to and with Christ, that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake, he would be reconciled to sinners (as soon as they are in Christ by Faith) by not imputing their sins to them; and this performed on God the Father's part, is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God, because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant; and by this righteousness of God, he is reconciled to all believing sinners, and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his sight. 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to God's positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice, it follows, That as by one man's disobedience to God's mere positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19 the forbidden fruit, the many (as well as the Reprobates) are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience; So by the obedience of one (namely of Christ) to a mere positive Law in undertaking to combat with Satan, and to continue obedient to the death of the cross, and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice, the many are made righteous, Rom. 5. 19 for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant, he hath merited not only their conversion by the Holy Ghost, but also the Father's reconciliation for their justification, by not imputing their sins to them. So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second, lies in the meritorious cause; for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity, by his disobedience to God's positive Law and Covenant; so the second Adam merited the life of God's Spirit, and of God's forgiveness, by his obedience to God's positive Law, in making his soul a sacrifice. 5 Hence it also follows, that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law, is not here spoken of, namely, not in Rom. 5. 18, 19 and accordingly Mr. Wotton, Mr. Forbs, and divers other eminent Divines, do expound ver. 18, and 19 to relate only 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 Heresy from Rom. 5. 19 in p, 268. doth fail him, as well as all his other proofs. 6 My former Exposition of God's 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 Father's 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 God's 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 God's reconciliation for iniquity; and this reconciliation, he calls, an everlasting righteousness to sinners. And thus you see that Daniel doth make God's reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to believing sinners, as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5, 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of God's righteousness, in Psal. 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O God, Psal. 51. 14. than 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 God's Atonement in not imputing his bloodguiltiness to him, for the sake of Christ's Sin-Sacrifice? Thus you see that the Exposition given of God's 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 believe 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 God's Atonement 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 Atonement, 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 God's non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means, rather than a part of atonement 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 controversy. 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 atonement for sins of ignorance, than the promise annexed saith, It shall be forgiven him, Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly, that God's forgiveness is not an antecedent, but a true part of his atonement (if it be not the whole) The like is said of the Ruler's sin, in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people, in ver. 31, 35. namely, that when God's atonement 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 atonement, as in Levit. 5. 10, 13, 16, 18. and in Leu. 6. 7. and in Leu. 19 22. and in Numb. 15. 25, 26, 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his atonement, did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel, and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear, that when God's atonement 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 God's holy presence in his Sanctuary, or else in case they have Faith to look from the typical atonement to the mystical, they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins, and so an eternal justification in God's sight. Or thus, God's 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, God's Atonement, and his gracious forgiveness for Christ's sacrifice sake, is the same thing: And thus God's forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation. 3 This sense of God's forgiveness, as it is the whole of Reconciliation, is evident by God's 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 unrighteousness, Heb. 8. 12. and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more; the first expression, I will be merciful, is as much as I will be Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness, for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. God's Atonement or Expiation; and therefore this expression, I will be merciful, may as well be translated, I will be pacified, or I will be reconciled, or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness, and will remember their sins no more; And saith Nehemiah 9 17. Thou art a God of pardons, gracious, and merciful. And hence it is plain, that God's forgiveness is not an antecedent, or a means of God's Atonement, but it is plainly a true part thereof, if it be not the whole. 4 This is yet further evident, because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19 14. 19 where it is used to express God's forgiveness by his bearing of sin away, but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful, or pacified, or reconciled, but yet in vers. 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away. 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express God's repentance towards sinners, by forgiving (and not punishing) their sin, as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God, Repent of the evil to thy people, but the Septuagint translate it be merciful, or be pacified, or be reconciled, or be propitious to the evil of thy people, alluding in this expression to God's Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where (in type) God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, by not imputing their sins to them, as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar, more at large in Reply 9 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christ's sacrifice, doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof, Psal. 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21. and therefore God's forgiveness, may well be called his merciful forgiveness, or his reconciled forgiveness, as Mr. Ainsworth doth open God's forgiveness in Psal. 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent, but a concurrent part of God's Reconciliation, or of God's Righteousness, for Psal, 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21. though the terms be divers; for I demand, how else are we made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father, but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ, which was to be reconciled to believing sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them; And thus you see that these three terms, Gods merciful forgiveness, and his Reconciliation, and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness, do all con-note the same state of favour, that the subject is put into by means thereof, and so forgiveness is not antecedent, but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification. 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin, to reconcile God withal, and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinner's justification, by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering, as the procuring cause of God's reconciliation; for it is often said in the Law, that God ordained the Sin-offering to Leu. 6. 30. reconcile withal, as in Leu. 6. 30. 2 Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15, 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices (as well as the Sin-offering) to procure God's reconciliation, by not imputing sin; and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Atonement, as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness, as in Deut. 33. 19 Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 19 Deut. 33. 19 Psal. 51. 19 as I have showed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Atonement called sacrifices of Righteousness, but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato, procure God's reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them, and that was their legal righteousness? For the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh; And hence the Apostle doth argue, How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure God's reconciliation in not imputing sin, and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness, and therefore answerable to the types, God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to be our Burnt-offering, our Peace-offering, our Trespass-offering, our Meat-offering, and our Sin-offering, as the perfection of all the rest; For by his one offering once offered, he ended the use of all Trespass (offerings) and finished Sin (offerings) and made reconciliation for iniquity, and so brought in, or procured an everlasting Righteousness, Dan. 9 24. instead of their Dan. 9 24. Ceremonial reconciliation, which was their Ceremonial righteousness for God's holy presence in his Sanctuary. And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer, Dan. 9 7. O Lord, Righteousness belongeth unto thee, that is to say, merciful forgiveness, Dan. 9 7, 16. or reconciliation; and in vers. 16. O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, let thine anger be turned away: But the Septuagint render it, O Lord, according to thy mercy, let thine anger be turned away; namely, according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and believing sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness, and Atonement; Let thine anger be turned away, and justify us to be thy people by not imputing our sins to us; and in this sense the penitent Publican said, O Lord, be merciful to me a sinner; and so he went away justified by God's merciful atonement, and forgiveness, which was the very thing he prayed for. 9 Sin, till it is forgiven, doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner, and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ (it continues the enmity, but) then, and not till then, sin is forgiven; and then, and not till then, God is at rest, and is pacified and quieted: And for this cause all Sacrifices of Atonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah, Exod. 22. 18, 25, 41. Levit. 1. 9 Numb. 28. 6, 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb. 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40, 41. But the Septuagint translate it, A sweet savour of rest, and their phrase the Apostle followeth, saying, Christ hath given himself for us an offering, and a sacrifice to God, for a smell of sweet savour, Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broiled in the fire, materially considered, was no sweet smell; but formally considered, as they were ordained by God's positive Covenant, to procure his Atonement, and as they were types of Christ's Sacrifice, so only are they said to be of a sweet-smelling savour, because they procure his pardon, and so they quiet God's Spirit, as sweet smells do quiet and rejoice our senses, therefore God's forgiveness is not an antecedent or means of Atonement, but a concurrent part of Atonement. These Reasons (besides what others may be added) do sufficiently prove, That God's gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christ's sacrifice, is not an antecedent, but a true part (if it be not the whole) of God's Reconciliation. And secondly, These Reasons do prove, That it is God's righteousness to grant his reconciliation to all believing sinners for the sake of Christ's sacrifice for their formal and eternal righteousness. And thirdly, Hence it follows, that Mr. Nortons' conjectures, that reconciliation is but a consequent of justification, is fallen to the ground. 8 This Righteousness of God being thus explained; It necessarily follows, That such as hold God's Righteousness in being reconciled to sinners (for the satisfaction sake of Christ's Sin-sacrifice) to be the formality of a sinner's righteousness, must needs deny the imputation of Christ's moral righteousness to be the formal cause of a sinner's justification. SECT. VI BUt Mr. Norton in p. 268. Doth damn this formal cause for Heresy, and to make good his charge, he citys Rom. 5. 19 and Phil. 3. 9 intending thereby to prove, that the active righteousness of Christ to the moral Law, is imputed to us for our formal righteousness and justification. Reply 2. I have but a little before given the true sense of Rom. 5. 19 in a differing sense from the point that Mr. Norton would prove by it. And secondly, I will now examine his exposition of Phil. 3. 9 And truly, I cannot but wonder that he Phil. 3. 9 should cite it to prove the righteousness of Christ as our Surety to the moral Law, seeing there is no righteousness of Christ expressed in this Text; but the righteousness expressed is plainly called the righteousness of God, namely of God the Father, just as I have opened the phrase, in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and therefore this righteousness of God in Phil. 3. 9 must have the same sense as I have expounded it to have, in 2 Cor. 5. 21. And thus you see, that hitherto Mr. Nortons' proofs of Heresy have failed his expectation, and on the contrary, they do make directly against him. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. To say that pardon of sin is righteousness itself, is to confound the effect with the cause. Reply 3. If a mere natural Philosopher had said so, it had been the less wonder, but that a learned Divine should say so, especially after so much light both from Germane and English Divines, that have taken pains to make it evident, that God's gracious pardon is a sinner's righteousness, is to my apprehensions somewhat strange. This righteousness of God, saith P. Martyr (as I have noted him a little before) is far distant from the righteousness that is known by nature, for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind, not that they were ignorant of absolution, or of the pacifying of God, for that thing did their sacrifices testify: But (saith he) this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness. Hence I infer, that if Mr. Norton will but submit his reason to that peculiar way of justification, which God hath constituted only for believing sinners by his Covenant with Christ, and by his positive Laws, than he may soon see that God hath ordained a righteousness for believing sinners, by his reconciliation only, and not by the righteousness of the moral Law, as the principles of natural Reason is apt to judge, for the principles of natural reason cannot think of a righteousness for sinners by positive Laws, because it resteth in Gods will only to make such Laws effectual for that purpose. Secondly, This way of making sinners righteous, is lively typified and exemplified to us, by the Jews legal justifications, as I have in part noted a little before, and also in page 110, but because it is of concerument, I will speak a little more fully to this point. It pleased God of his good will and pleasure to covenant with Abraham, that his seed should be his peculiar Church and people in the land of Canaan, and in that respect he was pleased to set up the Tabernacle of his Divine presence among them, and set Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein, 2 Chron. 23. 19 And when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, they said to the Porters, in Psal. 118. 19 Open to me the gates of Righteousness, called the gates of Justice, saith Ainsworth, because only the just and clear might enter therein, and so ver. 20. and in Jer. 50. 7. The Temple is called the Habitation of Justice, because of their ceremonial Justice: No unclean person on pain of death might enter therein, Levit. 15. 21. and it was once a year cleansed with the blood of the Sin-offering, Levit 16. 16, 20. Neither might any dare to have communion with God, in feasting on the holy flesh, in the holy City, in their legal uncleanness, Levit. 7. 20. and 22. 3 9 And to make them, and to keep them clean, God gave them not only his Moral Law, with prohibitions of all that was contrary thereto, but also he gave them divers other positive Laws and Ordinances, for their legal justifications from all their ceremonial sins, yea, and from their moral sins also, Levit. 5. 4, 6. as to the outward man, when they were to come before God's presence in his Sanctuary, or when they were to feast with God on the holy flesh; and in case any did presume to come in their legal uncleanness before they were qualified according to the preparation of the Sanctuary, they were threatened to be cut off (as some of Ephraim were) 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19 Exod. 12. 15, 19 Levit. 7. 20, 21, 25, 27. Numb. 19 20. And sometimes such persons are threatened with death, as I noted above from Levit. 15. 31. And for fear of God's displeasure, by transgressing these positive Ordinances, all Israel in general, Leu. 15. 31. Sacrifices and washings were ordained for their typical justification under the first Covenant from their ceremonial sins. Exod. 22. 31. were exactly careful to observe these works of the Law (called the first Covenant, in Heb. 9 1. in relation to Heb. 8. 7, 8.) for their justification, when they were to come into God's holy presence in his Sanctuary, or to feast on the holy flesh; and for their exact care herein, the whole Nation (though many times there were but few that were truly godly among them) were called men of holiness, Exod. 22. 31. Leu. 11. 44. Exod. 19 6. and saith Ainsworth in Gen. 17. 12. By three things did Israel enter into Covenant. 1. By Circumcision, 2. By Baptism, 3. By Sacrifice. And their Levitical cleansing and worship, is called the first Covenant (as I have noted it also in p. 118.) That had Ordinances or Justifications of divine service, Heb. 9 1: and they are called carnal justifications, 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 sanctify them, to the purifying of the flesh, Heb. 9 13. namely, to justify 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 Passovers and Peace-offerings; and it is yet the more manifest, that this carnal cleansing did justify 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 God's atonement for their ceremonial justification, did but typify our moral justification by God's atonement, and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christ's Sin-offering▪ under the new Covenant, for nothing but God's atonement, alone doth cleanse and justify a sinner, and so the Apostle doth argue the case, in Heb. 9 13, 14. If (saith he) the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh; for by this means only they procured God's atonement and forgiveness, for their ceremonial defilements (according to God's appointment in the first Covenant of works) for without God's atonement 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 Atonement, 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 until she had obtained God's Atonement by her Sin-Sacrifice, Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed, than she had God's Atonement, 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 God's anger, before his presence in his holy Sanctuary. And thirdly, The H●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 God's presence in his holy Sanctuary. Fourthly, The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctify, to the purifying of the flesh, no otherwise, but as they procured God's atonement; for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh, but as it was ordained by the first Covenant, to procure God's atonement, so it doth formally cleanse and justify. Fifthly, It is further evident, that these legal cleansings did justify them, by procuring God's atonement for their ceremonial sins, because Gods eternal atonement 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 enforce his Argument thus, How much more shall the blood of Christ purge (or sanctify) 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 Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heiser, had power by God's positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh, yet they had not power to cleanse or justify 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 man's 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 Christ's sacrifice, and that atonement only 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 itself 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 justify 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 Satan's headplot, 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 justify the conscience from moral sins) because his was the perfection of them all, and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Father's atonement 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 misinterpret 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 signify 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 showeth, 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 be 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 God's sight, instead of the Ceremonial. And this Doctrine is clearly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24, 25. I say from these ●erses it is plain, that their outward Deut. 6. 24, 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes, did make them righteous, or justify 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 God's 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 chief applied to the positive Statutes that concerned God's worship in his Sanctuary, and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chief 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 chief, as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25, 26. Leu. 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 rendered 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 God's 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 he did in Heb. 9 for there he reasons thus; If (saith he) the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean, doth sanctify to the purifying, or justifying of the flesh (namely, by procuring God's Atonement, as I have explained the matter a little before) (than saith he) How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works? (namely, by obtaining God's Atonement 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 God's 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 justify from many sins. 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendered 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 he had finished his combat with Satan) according to his Covenant with his Father; The free gift (namely, the free gift of God's 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 entered upon all men by Adam's transgression of God's positive Law, verse 12. and here, life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to God's 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 God's Atonement 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 Bulls and Goats, and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification, by God's atonement procured thereby. And this is worthy of all due observation, That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes, was exemplified by God's 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 he) 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 God's 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 rendered 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 God's atonement 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 God's eternal Atonement, and Absolution, for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins; shall not their uncircumcision (in this case) be 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 Leu. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith; for it is Prophesied of them, That in the days 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 God's Statutes, Psal. 119. 80, 112. which cannot be 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 be here again remembered. 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 chief of the Law of Rites) is made good and strengthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations, and by these learned Expositors; namely, That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness. 1 I believe that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversy, 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 shown from Dan. 9 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14▪ there redeeming us from iniquity, and purifying by God's Atonement, 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 chief of the Ceremonial Laws; it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in all those places, except once, it must be 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 justify them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh, that so it might be imputed to them for their justification, but their righteousness was conveyed to them by God's positive Ordinance, even by a passive purity only, by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins, and so by the blood of Bulls procuring God's atonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins, for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring God's atonement and forgiveness; Blood materially considered doth not wash, but defile the flesh, but formally considered, as it was ordained by God's positive Law, to be a sacrifice for the procuring of God's 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 God's Atonement and Absolution; for it is God's Atonement (as I have often said, to have it the better marked) that doth formally cleanse, purge, and purify 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 sinner's 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, which is our Schoolmaster 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, endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place, by interpreting the word Law, and the righteousness 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 dependence on Rom. 9 31, 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chief, 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 for to justify them, but to describe and paint Christ unto them; Mark, That he makes the word Law, and the righteousness thereof, to relate to their Ceremonies. Ibidem, They go about to establish their own righteousness, and are not obedient to the righteousness that cometh of God, which is the forgiveness of sin in Christ's blood, to all that repent and believe; This is the coherence between the third verse, and Rom. 9 31. And from this coherence it follows in this fourth verse, That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. Secondly, P. Martyr on Rom. 9 31. saith, of the former interpretation thus, Rom. 9 31. In his Com. pl par. 2. p. 580. Indeed, I dislike it not; and in his Common places he doth expound the word Law, and the righteousness thereof, not as Mr. Norton doth of the moral Law, but of the whole Oeconomy of Moses, having respect chief to the ceremonial Law, and And see Wotton de reconc. peccat. par. l. 1. c. 19 Mr. Wotton treads in his steps, and Vindiciae fidei citys several other Orthodox to that Opinion, par. 2. p. 160. Thirdly, Grotius expounds the Law of works, in Rom. 3. 27. Grotius in his war and peace, p 24. Rom. 3. 27. of the Law of the carnal commandment, quite contrary to Mr. Nortons' exposition, for Mr. Norton doth expound this word Law, in p. 177. and 189. of the Law of Nature given to Adam in his innocency; but according to Grotius, and according to truth, it must be expounded of the Law of Works given to the Jews, for their legal justification from their ceremonial sins, when they appeared in God's holy presence in his Sanctuary; for it is most evident, that God made a Covenant of Works with the Jews, for their outward Justification, when they came into his holy Sanctuary, as well as a Covenant of Grace in Christ for their moral justification in his presence, both here and at the day of judgement. But in time, namely, when the Prophets ceased, the carnal Jews abused this Covenant of Works, as they did the brazen Serpent, by trusting to it, as well for their moral as for their ceremonial justification in the sight of God; And against this sort of justification by works doth the Apostle Paul dispute in his Epistle to the Romans, and to the Galatians, etc. Behold (say the Hebrew Doctors) it is said in the Law, ye shall keep my Statutes, and all my Judgements, and do them. Our wise men have said, That keeping and doing must be applied to the Statutes See Ains. in Leu. 5. 15. (as well) as unto the Judgements, etc. Now the Judgements they are Commandments; the reason (or meaning) whereof is manifest, and the good that cometh by doing of them is known in this world, as the forbidding to rob, and to shed blood, and the commandment to honour Father and Mother. But the Statutes (or Ordinances) are commandments, the reason whereof is not known, etc. And all the sacrifices every one generally are Statutes (or Ordinances) and our wise men have said, that for the services of the Sacrifices the world doth continue, for by doing the Statutes and the Judgements, righteous men are made worthy of life in the world to come, and the Law setteth the commandment of the statute first, saying, and ye shall keep my Statutes and my Judgements, which if a man do he shall live in them. Leu. 18. 5. By this, and such like testimonies which might be cited from the Hebrew Doctors, we may see as in a glass how the carnal Jews understood the word Law; namely, of all the Oeconomy of Moses, but chief and principally of the ceremonial Statutes and Ordinances; and in that respect they put their trust in their outward observation of the said Ordinances, which were indeed given them for their outward justification; and by this kind of righteousness Paul was made alive until God opened his eyes to see his sinful condition, by the spiritual application of the Law to his conscience, Phil. 3. 9 and then from the typical, he saw his inward justification. And secondly, This is worth marking, as I mentioned before, that in their legal justification, no actual holiness was put upon them, but only their ceremonial sins of uncleanness were purged from them, and that was their justice or justification, when they stood before him in his Sanctuary, for it is said, That the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh; but that kind of sanctification was obtained by their ceremonial purifyings, which did procure God's atonement in forgiving sin, and no other Sanctification was ordained for their legal Justification. Natural Philosophers, saith Peter Martyr, cannot be persuaded that the absolution of God procured by sacrifice did make men righteous, and therefore they did not call it our righteousness; P. Martyr spoke these words in his last explanation of Justification, and therefore though his former expressions do somewhat differ, it is not so much to be stood on, as on what he saith here in his last meditations. but you may see that Peter Martyr held (according to the ceremonial types) that the pacifying of God, and the procuring of his atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, is a sinner's righteousness. I say, this way of justification God was pleased to ordain by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant with Christ, which was also typified by his positive Covenant of Works, with the Jews. 1 It was his voluntary Covenant with Christ, that upon his undertaking to make his soul a sacrifice for sin, he would be reconciled to believing sinners, by not imputing their sins, to them; that is to say, he would justify them from their sins by his gracious forgiveness; and therefore it is God's Righteousness according to his Covenant with Christ, not to impute their sins, but to justify them formally by his non-imputation. I say it again, to have it the better marked, That this kind of righteousness God hath constituted to be a sinner's righteousness, from his voluntary Covenant with Christ, where the rule in all natural causes, positâ caulâ sequitur effectus, is not to be observed; for all voluntary Causes have voluntary Effects, according to the liberty of will that is in the Covenanters; they by their positive Ordinance and Covenant have constituted a righteousness for sinners by the meritorious cause of Christ's Sacrifice, and by the formal cause of God's reconciliation, as soon as the Holy Ghost hath united them to Christ by Faith. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. etc. Pardon of sin cannot complete Righteousness, for Righteousness doth not consist in being sinless, but also in being just; the Heavens are sinless, yet they are not just; the unreasonable creature is sinless (saith he) in p. 209. but not righteous. Reply 5. Every mean person knows, that the Heavens, and such like unreasonable Creatures, are a subject that is not capable of forgiveness, because they are not capable of sin in a proper sense, and therefore also they are not capable of this kind of righteousness: But the Dialogue speaks only of sinners that are reasonable creatures; yea, and of such sinners as are in Christ; and therefore it speaks of such creatures as are capable of pardon, and so they are fit subjects of being made righteous by pardon. But Secondly, Why cannot pardon complete righteousness? hath not God a supreme power by his voluntary Law and Covenant, to make it a sinners formal righteousness, as well as he had to constitute a fruit tree (which he called the Tree of Life) to confirm Adam in his created perfections, if he had but once eaten thereof? We must not look to what is a perfect righteousness to our senses; but we must look to God's positive Ordinance; he could tell how to ordain such a righteousness as will best fit sinners. Thirdly, We see also, that by his own voluntary Ordinance, he made unreasonable creatures that are not guilty of moral sins, to be guilty of ceremonial sins, and to be capable also of ceremonial justification, as I instanced afore of the Temple, it was first polluted by Antiochus, and it was afterwards justified by sanctified Priests, in carrying out the filth thereof, Dan. 8. 14. The like may be said of the defiled leprous house, and of the cleansing of it, in Levit. 14. And see more for this in Ainsw. in Exod. 29. 36. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 212. If you inquire after the essential matter of justification, among the The material cause of Justification. causes enumerated by the Author; behold the Dialogue is speechless, and presents you with a form without matter, such a being as is neither created nor increated. And he takes delight in this Irony, because he doth so often repeat it, as in p. 212, 217, 225, 237, etc. Reply 6 Herein Mr. Norton doth mock at God's Wisdom and Work, in giving a form to the Angels without matter. Mr. Ainsworth saith, that the Angels have a form without matter, and he citys Maymony to concur in that, in Gen. 1. 1. Yea, the matter of man's body, and the form of Angels, may be united to do service to man, and yet not be but one person, but may continue still to be both distinct matter without form, and form without matter; As for example, when the Angels assumed bodies, it was no● to give that matter any natural form, but it was a miraculous union, only for their present ministry to men: And hence you see that the matter of man's body and the form of Angels may be united, and yet remain two distinct things. Secondly, Mr. Norton doth not only mock at the Dialogue, but at sundry other eminent Divines, who make no other material cause than the Dialogue doth. 1 The Dialogue saith, that the subject matter of Justification is believing sinners; and in this the Dialogue follows learned Mr. Wotton. And 2. Mr. Wotton doth follow Peter Martyr, who makes See P. Martyr in Rom. 3. 26. no other material cause in Justification, but believing sinners. And 3. Saith M. Ball, It is to be observed, that the Apostle saith, And Ball on the Coven. p. 219. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; where (saith he) the world is the subject or matter of reconciliation, and by the same reason he makes it the matter of Justification, for he makes Justification to be a branch, at least of Reconciliation, if not the whole, as I noted before. 4. Mr. John Goodwin doth learnedly dispute against that kind of material cause, that Mr. Norton contends for, and he also See Vindiciae fidei, par. 2. follows Mr. Wotton for the subject matter. 5. Mr. Baxter, in his Aphorisms, p. 213. enumerating the causes, saith, that a material cause properly it hath none; If, saith he, you will improperly call Christ's satisfaction the remote matter, I contend not. And in p. 217. he saith thus, Christ's righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act, which hath no matter. And in his Reply to Mr. Air, p. 20. Sect. 4. He saith thus. First, As matter is proper to substance, so Justification being an accident hath no matter; are not you of the same mind? Secondly, As accidents do inhere in the subject, so the subject is commonly called their matter; In this sense also our righteousness or justification passive is not in Christ's righteousness, but in ourselves, and so ourselves are the matter; for I think it is we that are justified: and (saith he) in another place, if any please to make the blood of Christ the matter improperly, I contend not. And to this I do also give my consent. But Mr. Norton makes Christ's suffering of hell torments, and the second death, to be the matter, and this matter I cannot consent to. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 222. To speak after the stile of the Dialogue; if righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by Christ's sacrifice of atonement; neither then can atonement be a sinner's righteousness: that which procureth or purchaseth is the cause, that which is procured is the effect; the cause cannot be the effect. Reply 7. 1 The stile of the Dialogue is borrowed very much from the types of the ceremonial Law, which were ordained to be our Schoolmaster to Christ; and I believe, if more pains were taken to express the point of satisfaction, and the point of justification, in that stile, it would be much for the clearing of the truth. 2 It seems that Mr. Norton will have no other righteousness for a sinners formal righteousness, but Christ's moral righteousness imputed; for he makes the Father's righteousness in being attoned to sinners, of no account in the formal cause; But, saith Mr. Baxter in his Apology to Mr. Blake, p. 24. It must be known, that the righteousness given us, is not the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous (for accidents perish being removed from their subject) but it is a righteousness merited, by Christ's satisfaction and obedience, for us: And that can be no other, say I, but a passive righteousness by God's merciful atonement in not imputing sin, as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances. 3. I have already showed, and I think it needful to repeat it again. First, That it was Christ's satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice. And secondly, That it was God's Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part, which was, to be reconciled to sinners, by not imputing their sins to them, as soon as they are in Christ by faith; The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christ's combat with Satan, performed on his part, did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part; and both these Righteousnesses, together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost, which was to proceed from the Father and the Son, to convert sinners, and ●o unite them to Christ, that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousness; I say, this voluntary, and reciprocial Covenant between the Trinity, doth constitute all the causes of a sinner's righteousness; and in particular, the Covenant on the Father's part doth constitute the formal part of it. This positive created Righteousness was unknown to natural Philosophers, it is not framed from the moral Law of Nature, but it is a Righteousness for sinners, created on purpose by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant of the Trinity. 4. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should so much plead for the moral righteousness of Christ to be the matter, and the imputation of it to be the form of our righteousness; seeing it did not formally constitute Adam's righteousness, as Mr. Norton himself doth also acknowledge, in p. 261. and Mr. Burges on Justification, p. 8. and indeed the reason thereof is very plain, because God required that Adam should first eat of the tree of life, as the meritorious cause for procuring the formality of his moral perfections, and this tree had this efficacy from God's voluntary positive Covenant with Adam. As I have showed more large already, chap. 2. The Dialogue saith, that sinners in themselves, namely, as long as they continue to be sinners which is as long as they live in this body of sin, can have no other righteousness than a passive righteousness, proceeding from God's merciful atonement, pardon, and forgiveness. But Mr. Norton in p. 231. leaves out these words [in themselves] and then makes a false Argument of the Dialogues sense. But I dare say, no judicious Christian, that will but make through search into all the types of legal Justification, shall find any other way of making sinners righteous, but by Atonement, or Reconciliation in not imputing sin. Reckon up the legal terms, by which Atonement is expressed, and that will justify what I say; as by expiating sin, not imputing sin, mercifully forgiving sin, purging sin, purifying, washing, cleansing sin, to the sanctifying the flesh; these, and such like are abundantly used in the Law; but never any for making righteous by imputing moral righteousness, which doubtless would have been ordained to typify the imputation of Christ's moral righteousness in the formal cause of Justification, if any such thing had been intended for the only formal cause. 5. It seems to me, that Mr. Norton doth wilfully stumble at the stile of the Dialogue, because it makes a sinner's righteousness to be procured by Christ's sacrifice of Atonement; but any one may see that this phrase, the Sacrifice of Atonement, (at which he stumbles) is a usual Scripture phrase, for the public yearly Sin-Offering is called the Sin of Atonements, Ezod. 30. 10. and the Ram of Atonement, Numb. 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by God's voluntary Covenant, to procure God's Atonement, and Justification from all their legal sins; even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by God's atonement, and in relation to their typical use, the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Atonement Reconciliation or Atonement described both in the meritorious & formal causes. for the procuring of God's atonement for all our moral sins, and so consequently for our moral justification; and this is most clear, because the Apostle doth define God's reconciliation to sinners, by his not imputing their sins to them, 2 Cor. 5. 19 for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner; but when God doth not impute sin, than there is no more jar, but reconciliation with God: And therefore the sin of Atonement, which was offered on Reconciliation-day, is called by the Septuagint, the Purgation of sins, because it procured God's Atonement, by which only sin is purged away, Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ, Heb. 1. 3. namely, as it is the meritorious cause of God's reconciliation, whereby our sins are fully purged. The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signify to cover, pacify, or appease, noting thereby the meritorious cause, Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to be pacified, doth note the formal cause; It doth also signify to satisfy, or recompense, noting thereby the meritorious cause, 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal. 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to be satisfied, doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation, as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, satisfied or reconciled; and so in Psal. 85. 1, 2. Lord, thou hast been favourable, or well-pleased with thy land, Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people, and covered all their sin; These three several phrases are Synonimas, and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification; but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation, needs not now to be disputed, because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward. And hence it follows, that Christ's sacrifice may well be called a Sacrifice of Atonement, because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Atonement, and because it was ordained to procure God's Atonement; and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Atonement, are called Sacrifices of Righteousness, Deut. 33. 19 Psal. 51. 19 Deut. 33. 19 Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 19 not only because they were offered in faith, as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness, in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness, because they did legally complete a sinner's righteousness, in respect of his ceremonial sins, and so also they did exemplify how a sinner's righteousness should be completed by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins; sacrifices must be performed in righteousness, that is to say, without spot or wrinkle, for than they were offered in righteousness, according to God's Law, and then God accepted them, and granted his Atonement according to his Covenant, and that was his righteousness, and then when he was attoned to sinners, it was their righteousness; this is suitable to legal righteousness, by which God did exemplify our moral righteousness. Conclusion. God's Atonement or Reconciliation, hath these two parts: 1 His not imputing sin. 2 His receiving into favour, or both these may be joined into one, namely, God's gracious pardon; and all this is the effect of Christ's sacrifice, for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a believing sinner that is in Christ, from the guilt of all his sins, and so receives him into favour by adoption; or thus, God's Atonement for the sake of Christ's Sacrifice, is not a bare legal forgiveness, as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor, and so leaves him; but it is a gracious acquital, as when a Father forgives his Son, and receives him into favour. And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express; and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logic, and his own conscience; for he knows that in his antecedent, this phrase [By Christ's Sacrifice of Atonement] is meant both of the cause and effect; Christ's sacrifice being the cause, and God's atonement the effect; and therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ is all along so plainly intended by the Dialogue, to be the only meriting cause of the formal, namely, of God's atonement, for a sinner's righteousness or justification, It follows, that the consequence which Mr. Norton draws from it, viz. neither then can atonement be a sinner's righteousness, is a senseless non sequitur. And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether Mr. Norton had any just cause to thunder out such reproachful censures against this kind of atonement in the Dialogue, as he hath done in page 210, 223, 224, 237. and saith he in page 228. the atonement of the Dialogue is not God's atonement, but a pestilent fiction and abomination. My heart trembles at this high blasphemy, the Lord in mercy open his eyes to see better. And saith Mr. Norton in page 210. The Reader is desired to take full notice of the Dialogues corrupt sense, being the Helena, etc. Reply 8. The Reader is also desired to examine throughly, who hath the truth on his side, and also to take full notice whether he can find such an active moral righteousness imputed, as Mr. Norton doth substitute in page 210. for the formal cause of a sinner's righteousness; I have made search into the method of righteous-making by the typical sacrifices, and cannot find any such righteous-making, as Mr. Norton holds; examine therefore whether I have not both in the Dialogue, and in this Chapter, rightly opened the types thereof, both in the meritorious and formal causes. But saith Mr. Norton page 209. The Hebrew translated Atonement, properly signifieth to cover some thing, yet not with a garment, or the like, which may be taken off again; but with some cleaving and tenacious matter, as Pitch, Lime, Mortar, etc. Reply 9 This exposition of the word Atonement, may (I conceive) misled the Reader as well as himself, because he restrains it to Pitch, or such like tenacious matter that cannot be taken off again, and therefore I will open the use of the word for the advantage of the Readers. 1 I find by Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek-Lexicon, That the Hebrew Caphar doth signify to cover: This is the general sense of the word; But what kind of covering is to be understood by the word, must be fetched from the circumstances of each particular text where it is used; As for example, in Gen. 6. 14. it is used for such a covering as is made with Bitumen, Pitch, Tar, Rosin, and such like cleaving things, because that kind of covering was only fit to stop and cover the chinks and cracks that were in the Ark, to preserve it from perishing in the waters (a figure of God's Atonement in our Baptism, that covereth our sins, and so saveth us) but saith Ainsworth in Gen. 6. 14. there are two other Hebrew words in Exod. 2. 3. which are the proper words for Pitch and Plaster, and therefore Caphar is used for Pitch in Gen. 6. 14. but in a metaphorical sense, and in that respect Tindal in 1 Joh. 2. 2. doth apply it (and that most fitly) to mollifying Plasters, that are laid on angry sores to mollify and assuage their angry pain. 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost, in Exo. 16. 14. because, the Manna did lie upon, or cover the ground (after the dew was exhaled) just like as the Hoar-frost doth cover the ground. It is also put for the Hoar-frost in Job 38. 29. and in Psal. 147. 16. but there the Septuagint do translate it Clouds; and indeed it is not unfit, because Clouds do cover the face of the Sky, and do also scatter the Hoar-frost, Hail, and Snow, which do often cover the face of the earth; but these kind of cover are soon taken off again, therefore it doth not always signify such a covering as may not be taken off again, and it is applied to Cypress trees, because it is a pleasant shady cover against the scorching Sun, Cant. 1. 13. 3 Caphar is applied to the covering of an angry countenance by some acceptable present; And thus Jacob did cover Esau's angry face, I will, said Jacob, cover (or appease) his face with the present that g●eth before me, and afterward I will see his face, Gen. 32. 20. And in this sense, a wise man will cover the King's angry face, Prev. 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe, because a Bribe doth cover the Exod. 30. 12. A further description of God's Atonement in respect both of the meritorious & formal causes. eyes of the Judge, and causeth him to pervert Justice, Amos 5. 12. but said just Samuel to the people, Of whose hand have I received any present (namely, by way of a Bribe) to cover mine eyes therewith in the case of Justice? 1 Sam. 12. 3. 5 Caphar is put for a price of Redemption, because it doth cover the offended face of the Supreme, and reconcile him, Esa. 43. 3. But jealousy saith Prov. 6. 35. is outrageous, it will not regard the presence of any cover or ransom. See also in Numb. 35. 31. and Psal. 41. 81. and in Exod. 21. 30. and in Exod. 30. 12. They shall give every man the ransom of his soul, or the cover of his soul, namely, half a shekel for every man to cover Gods angry face, that there be no plague among them to take away their lives, as he had done from the former Six hundred thousand. But mark, this price which God appointed them to give for the That only is the full and formal price of our redemption, that was constituted so to be by God's volunrary positive Law and Covenant. ransom, or cover of their souls from death, which else would certainly have fallen upon them, was but half a Shekel, which in humane reason (materially considered) cannot be esteemed a sufficient price for the ransom of their souls from death, as David showeth, in Psal. 49. 7, 8. yea, though it were paid yearly during life: But formally considered, namely as it was ordained by God's positive, Law and Covenant to be paid and accepted as the price of redeeming their lives from death, so it was the full price of their lives, because Gods positive Law and Covenant had made it to be a full price; if they had offered many thousands of silver for the redemption of their lives, yet it had not been a sufficient price without God's positive Law and Covenant: As I have showed in Chap. 8. in Ahabs' offer to Naboth, in 1 King. 21. 3. Even so it was Gods positive Law and Covenant, that made the death and sacrifice of Christ to be the 2 King. 21. 3. full price to cover Gods angry face, or to atone him for the ransom of the many, Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 6. The said price of redemption is called the silver of Atonements, Exod. 30. 16. and with this money, or at least with part of See Ainsw. in Exod. 30. 12. and Leu. 28. 4. it, they bought the daily sacrifices, that were offered morning and evening for the procuring God's atonement to the whole Church of Israel, and with this money they also purchased the public Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings, and therefore it was called sin-mony, and trespass-mony, 2 King. 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32, 33. but in Exo. 30. 16. is called atonement money, and by some Translations redemption-mony, because redemption is obtained by procuring God's atonement; and hence we may see the reason why we are said to be bought with a price, 1 Cor. 6. 20. and why the blood of Christ is called a price, 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19 the phrase of a price given to the Sacrifice, and so to Christ's sacrifice, is borrowed from the price that God appointed them to pay for the redemption of their lives, and for the buying of sacrifices of atonement, for the procuring of God's atonement for the redemption of their lives, and so for their justification in his sight. Sixthly, Caphar is used for the covering of God's angry face from moral sins that defile the Land, by executing impartial Justice upon Malefactors; And thus Phineas, when he executed justice on the Fornicators, did by that means (cover Gods angry face, or) make atonement for the Sons of Israel, Numb. 25. 17. In like sort, when Gods angry face had been upon the Land by a three years' famine, for saul's bloody sin, in slaying the innocent Gibbeonites: Then David said to the Gibbeonites, wherewith shall I (cover Gods angry face, or) make atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord, 2 Sam. 21. 3. Then they Deut, 21. 8. said in ver. 6. Let seven of his Sons be given, and we will hang them up to the Lord; and so God's angry face was covered and attoned. It is also said in Numb. 35. 33. Blood polluteth the Land, and there shall be not (covering of my anger, or) atonement made for the Land, but by the blood of him that shed it; and in case of a secret murderer, yet by God's Ordinance the Land was guilty, till the Elders of the people had made atonement by the death of a Bullock, Exod. 21. 8. Seventhly, Caphar is used for the covering of God's angry face from ceremonial sins, by typical Sacrifices of Atonement, and from the moral sins of our souls, by the true sacrifice of Christ. And this kind of covering by Atonement doth always denote God's forgiveness and receiving into favour, as Leu. 4. 20, 26, 31, 35. Leu. 5. 6, 10, 13, 16, 18. And sometimes it is expressed by making clean, as in Numb. 8. 21. Leu. 16. 30. Mr. Ainsworth in Gen. 32. 20. saith, This word Caphar is often used in the Law for covering or taking away offences, and for pacifying anger by gifts, and so making Atonement, as in Exod. 29. 36. Levit. 1. 4, 20, 26. and 5. 6, 10, 13. Deut. 21. 8. And saith he, in Psal. 65. 4. Our trespasses thou wilt mercifully cover them, namely, expiate, propitiate, purge away, and so mercifully cover and forgive them. And, saith he, the Hebrew Caphar signifies to cover; and saith he, the cover of the Ark was called Caporeth, Exod. 25. 17. in Greek Hilasteri●n, That is, the propitiatory or Mercy-Seat, Hebr. 9 5. which name Paul giveth to Christ, Rom. 3. 25. and he is the true propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 2. 2. And saith he, in Psal. 78. 38. He being compassionate mercifully covered iniquity. And saith he, in Psal. 79. 9 mercifully cover our sins; he doth most fitly add the word merciful, to the word cover; because Caporeth is applied to the cover of the Ark, called God's Mercy-Seat, where he used to appear and to manifest his favour, by the cloud of his presence, when he was attoned to his people, Leu. 16. 2. and so the word Merciful, or propitious, is added to God's forgiving the sins of his people, in Heb. 8. 12. and such as confess their sins have the promise of God's mercy, namely, of his merciful pardon, in Prov. 28. 13. By these, and such like considerations, we may see the reason why David useth this phrase, Blessed is the man whose sin i● covered, Psal. 32. 1. namely, by God's gracious forgiveness, for the sake of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice. The use of the offering, saith Ainsworth, was to procure God's atonement or remission of sins, as it is evident, saith he, by Job 42. 8. and so (saith he) the anger of God is (covered, or) appeased by the offering of Christ's, for he is the atonement or reconciliation for our sins. Dan. 9 24. 1 Joh. 2. 2. Heb. 10. 8▪ 10. Eighthly, After I had penned these meditations on the word Atonement, I met with another excellent explanation of it in our larger Annotations, in 2 Chr. 6. 49. The Reader may please to confer that note with these meditations. Ninethly, It is also worth the marking, that the Seventy do render the Hebrew word Caphar, in various expressions. Some of them I will name. 1. The Seventy do render the word Caphar to sanctify, in Exod. 29. 33. There our Translation saith thus, Aaron and his sons shall eat those things by which atonement was made; But the Seventy say, by which they were sanctified. And so in ver. 36. our translation saith thus, Thou shalt offer every day a Bullock for a sin of Atonement; The Seventy say, for a sin, by which they shall be sanctified; But I have opened this word sanctified before, in Reply 3. And so it is said in Heb. 9 13. That the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, for their legal Justification before God in his Sanctuary. But when Christ came into the world he took away these legal sanctifications, and these bodily justifications, by the blood of Bulls, etc. and according to Gods will he established his own Sacrifice in the place of them; by which will, saith the Apostle, we are sanctified, namely, by God's atonement and forgiveness, Heb. 10. 10, 14. that is to say, we are justified from our moral sins, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. This exposition of the word Caphar, which is used to set out Gods covering of sin by his atonement, is by the Seventy translated sanctified, and therefore it doth force us to take notice (but that we are dull of hearing) that a sinner's righteousness in God's sight doth stand in being sanctified or made sinless by God's atonement and forgiveness; This kind of sanctification is our only justification in God's sight; For according to the understanding of the Seventy Interpreters, Caphar, the covering of sin by God's atonement, did denominate the Jews to be legally sanctified to the purifying of their flesh, because by God's atonement their impurity was removed, without putting any active purity upon their flesh, by any positive Ordinance. This kind of sanctification therefore was a lively type of our moral justification, both by the meritorious cause of Christ's Sacrifice, and by the formal cause of God's Atonement. 2. The Seventy do render Caphar, to cleanse, as in Exod. 29. 37. and in Exod. 30. 10. 3. They render it to purge, in Deut. 32. 43. Exod. 30. 10. Isa. 60. 7. and these three differing expressions do but explain the former word Atonement, in our Translations, for in Exod. 29. 33, 36. it is in the same verses, it is also explained by the word sanctified, as Synonimas to Caphar, By these and such like terms given by the Seventy to Caphar, it is evident, that they understood, that when Gods angry face was attoned by sacrifice, in relation to their ceremonial sins, that they were thereby sanctified, to the purifying of their flesh, Heb. 9 13. and that thereby their persons were justified in respect of their appearing before God's presence in his Sanctuary, or in regard of feasting with him on the holy flesh of the Passeover, or Peace-offerings; and in this respect they called such cleansings, Heb. 9 1, 10. justifications of divine Service, Heb. 9 1. and carnal justifications, in v. 10. viz. Ceremonial, Ritual, and Typical, as Mr. Trap expounds it, or the righteousness of the flesh, as I have more largely opened the matter a little before; and so also when the Temple was ceremonially purged from the pollutions of Antiochus, it is said in the Seventy, to be cleansed, but in the Hebrew Text it is said to be justified, Dan. 8. 14. Hence it follows by an unavoidable consequence, that their Dan. 8. 14. legal Ordinances by which they obtained God's atonement, for their legal cleansings, sanctifyings, and justifying, and for their legal righteousness, did typify and exemplify how sinners are cleansed, washed, sanctified and justified, as it is expressed by these terms in 1 Corinth. 6. 11. and how they are made righteous by the righteousness of the Law, as it is in Rom. 2. 26. and in Rom. 8. 4. namely, because the sacrifice of Christ is the fulfilling and end of all sacrifices, and of all other legal cleansings, and therefore it is the only meritorious and procuring cause of God's atonement and forgiveness, for the formal cleansing, washing, sanctifying, and justifying the conscience, from the accusing and condemning power of all moral sins, by which means we may stand before God as justified persons in his sight, when we come to put up our requests unto him, or to feast with him at the Lords Table; for when we come to the Lords Table, God's forgiveness is the greatest and most precious dainty, for which Christ shed his blood; and therefore, at his last Supper he said thus to his Disciples, This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for the many, for the remission of sins, Mat. 26. 28. according as it was promised in Dan. 9 24. this dainty of God's forgiveness, is the great purchase of Christ's blood, which makes them blessed that have it, Psa. 32. 1. and makes them eternally righteous in God's sight that have it, Dan. 9 24. This, and a n●w heart, are the two great legacies of the new Covenant, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. These things thus opened (me thinks) should so enlighten the eyes of our understanding to see what the righteousness of God is, and to embrace it as a most blessed truth, or at least, not to resist it, but to strive to understand is better, but when Gods will is to darken the understanding of men with erroneous conceptions, than the tongue of Angels cannot prevail with them to hold the contrary. And thus have I in some measure opened this phrase, The Righteousness of God, by his Reconciliation or Atonement; and I have opened the word Atonement, both in the meritorious and in the formal causes; namely, that Sacrifices for sin did meritoriously cover Gods angry face, atone, pacify, reconcile, expiate, propitiate, purge, sanctify, cleanse, and purify, or make righteous a sinner, by procuring God's atonement for his formal reconciliation, righteousness, and justification. And now methinks Mr. Norton may do well to consider his unadvisedness in vilifying this kind of atonement. And 2. In restraining it only to a covering of pitch, and such like tenaclou● matter, whereby he confounds both his own understanding and his Readers also. The second part of Mr. Nortons' comparative Argument, in pag. 53. is this. Christ was made sin, as he was made a curse; but he was made a curse by judicial imputation; therefore he was made sin by a real imputation. Reply 10. In my examination of Gal. 3. 13. I have showed how Christ was made a curse, and in the beginning of this Chapter, I have showed how he was made sin, therefore I shall not need to make any further reply here to these things, but refer the reader to those places. 2 The rest that he allegeth in p. 55. wherein he makes God to charge Christ with sin as a supreme Judge, according to the judicial way of Court proceed, because it is no Scripture language in the point of Christ's satisfaction, but devised terms to express his own erroneous conception, therefore I shall not need to give any other answer to it here, CHAP. XV. The Examination of Gal. 3. 13. with Deut. 21. 23. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law when he was made a curse for us; For it is written (in Deut. 21. 23.) Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a Tree. THe Cusre of hanging upon a Tree, which Christ suffered, the Dialogue doth expound of the outward curse which he suffered, in respect of the outward manner of his death, by hanging on a Tree. But Mr. Norton in page 93. Doth expound it, Of the inward and eternal Curse, which he suffered from God's immediate wrath, when he hung upon the Tree. SECT. I. Mr. Norton frames his Argument thus: If not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth, but also Christ's Redemption of us from the Curse of the Law, by being made a curse for us, is both held forth, and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. then the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper, but a typical signification. But not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth, but also Christ's redemption of us from the curse of the Law, by being made a curse for us, is both held forth, and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. Therefore the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper, but ● typical signification. The minor saith Mr. Norton, is the Apostles. Reply 1. Mr. Norton doth exceedingly abuse the Apostles meaning, to say that his minor is the Apostles, and also in saying that the Apostle doth cite Deut. 21. 23. to prove that our Redemption by Christ is both held forth and foretold there. But for the better finding out of the Apostles meaning in Gal. 3. 13. There are two distinct clauses in the fomer part of the verse that are of necessity to be well marked. 1 That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law. 2 That he was made a curse for us. These two clauses the Dialogue hath expressed thus. 1 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law. 2 When he was made a curse for us. Now saith the Dialogue, the Apostle citys Deut. 21. 23. only to prove the last clause, namely, That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death, like unto other notorious Malefactors, even at the same time when he redeemed us from the curse of the Law, by making the formality of his death to be a sacrifice, by his own Priestly power. 2 It is further evident, that this sense is the truth, by the prediction of it from the time of Adam's fall, in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt pierce him as a sinful Malefactor on the Tree, and yet he shall break thy Headplot at the very same time, by his The outward manner of Christ's death on the Tree, was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. obedience to the death; for in all his conflict with thy ignominious torturing pains on the Cross, he shall not suffer his patience to be disturbed, nor his obedience to be perverted, but he shall continue obedient to the death, even the death of the Cross; and in that obedience, as soon as thou hast done thy worst to disturb it, and as soon as he hath finished all his sufferings, he shall make his death a sacrifice by his own Priestly power; And it is reconded of him, that as soon as he had but said, It is finished, he bowed his head, and gave up the Ghost, and that was the formality both of his death and sufferings; And thus he broke the Devil's Headplot, had the victory and won the prize which was the redemption of all the Elect, even at the same time when he was put to death, as a cursed Malefactor, by the Devil, in hanging on a Tree. This was the declared platform of the Trinity according to their eternal Covenant for man's Redemption, as I have expressed it in the Dialogue, but have often in this book amplified and enlarged it. 3 It is worth the marking, that the Apostle doth not put the Article The, to the word Curse, cited from Deut. 21. 23. but only to the first word Curse, as it is cited in verse 10. from Deut. 27. But in case the latter word Curse had included the moral Curse, as well as the former word Curse, then in reason it should have had the Article [The] put to it, as well as it is to the former; but because it is not put to the latter, therefore this may serve as another Argument to prove the Apostle meant that Christ suffered no other Curse, but such a Curse as his proof meant, namely, a cursed death in the outward manner of it, just like unto those Malefactors that were hanged on a Tree, according to Deut. 21. 23. and Gen. 3. 15. And to this sense doth Chrysostom and Theophilact expound the Curse that Christ suffered, cited in the former Chapter, namely, that he suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner, for he was put to death as a sinner by the Devil's imputation, but not by God's imputation; if he had suffered as a sinner from God's immediate wrath, and by God's imputation, than he must some way or other have had communion with our guilt; For (saith Grotius afore cited) merit is personal; and therefore when the Ancient Divines say, He suffered on a Tree, as if he had been a sinner, they mean it only in respect of the likeness of his punishments unto other cursed Malefactors, which punishment an innocent person may suffer as well as a Malefactor: And so Austin (saith well) that Christ received our punishment without sin, that thereby he might dissolve our sin, and end our punishment. And in relation to this sense the Dialogue doth open the Apostles words thus, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, even at the same time [When] he was made (not that Curse in verse 10. But) a curse for us, according to Deut. 21. 23. But, saith Mr. Norton, the word [When] is not in the Text, but it is of your own putting in. Reply 2. It is a usual thing with Mr. Norton, to censure the Dialogue with some odious thing or other, without any just cause; But by his leave the Dialogue is able to justify itself, by the concurrence of good Authors, for this word When. 1 Mr. Perkins doth use the word When twice over: First, In his translation of this Text. And secondly, In his Analysis. 2 Mr. Ainsworth doth render this Text thus, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, When he was made a curse for us, in Exod 32. 32. 3 Mr. Calvin in his citation of this Text, doth put in the word (When) just as Mr. Ainsworth hath done, in his Inst. lib. 2. Chap. 16. Sect 6. 4 The Prophet Isaiah useth the word When just in this very case, saying, in Isa. 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to Isa. 53. 10. put him to grief (on the Tree) When he shall make his soul a Trespass, namely, a Trespass, or a Sin-sacrifice, as the Septuagint render Asham. 5 The Syriak doth translate it And (or When) he was made a Curse for us; Vaughan in Syriak and Hebrew, is usually put for And, and yet it is sometimes also put for When; and therefore Tremelius doth render it in to Latin, Dum pro nobis factus est execratio; and Erasmus doth translate the Greek thus, Dum pro nobis, which doth answer to our English word When or While. 6 Tindal doth translate Gal. 3. 13. by And, and not by Being. 7 The Greek word in Gal. 3. 13. is often put for When by our Translators, as in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak, Vaughan, into Latin, Dum, and into English (When) he was in Bethany, and When he was in an Agony, and therefore by the like reason, it may as well be translated, When he was made a Curse for us. 8 It seems to me therefore that Mr. Norton doth find fault with the Dialogue, from no other cause, but because the word When doth utterly spoil the visage of the Argument, for it is no way suitable to his typical sense, on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend, and therefore it is no marvel, that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christ's greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chastisement, in Isa. 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him; namely, When he was wounded for our transgressions, and when he was bruised for our iniquities. But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross, than the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it, for we cannot find in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God, and the torments of Hell, are called Chastisements. If Mr. Norton had not been transported with a high conceit of his own erroneous Tenants, 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 showed 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 he mean it of both these clauses, than I deny that the causal particle [For] was so intended by the Apostle, for I have before showed, that the Apostle did intent 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 he) what hinders, that the foregoing part of the verse, namely, Redemption, etc. Reply 4. What hinders (saith Mr. Norton) he knows well that Interrogations are no Arguments to prove what he affirms, he should have proved his affirmative, and not demanded the question, What hinders? To●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 showed 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, he 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 Sunset, above all other capital sufferings. And, saith he, in page 96. in case they be not buried before Sunset 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. he citys 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 Sunset, 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 byword, 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, bywords, and curses, are all joined 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 lingering violent death, as it is expressed, in Gen. 3. 15. therefore it was God's 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 combat with Satan, with man's 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 pierce me in the footsoals, 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 Christ's 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 anointed. 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 only 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, chief, 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 only 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 scourge, and to crucify 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 revile. 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 Devil's 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 Sunset. For Mr. Norton saith, That in case the body that was banged, did continue unburied till after Sunset, 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 sunset, as Mr Norton The time of the burial of the person hanged might be after sunset 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 limits of the same natural day, for the words of the Text are thus, He shall not hang all night, but thou shalt bury him the same day: And I have at large showed in my Treatise of Holy Time, that the same natural day was not ended till midnight, and see more in Sect. 8. In like sort, the Peace-offerings were commanded to be eaten the same day, in which they were offered, Leu. 7. 15. and yet they might be eaten after sunset, as the speech of the Harlot doth show, in Prov. 7. 9 and for this see Prov. 7. 9 Ains. in Leu. 7. 15, 18. and in Leu. 22. 30. Secondly, in this particular case of hanging, we see that Joshua did permit the King of Ai to continue hanging on the tree until the Sun was down▪ Josh. 8. 29. and therefore seeing he did Josh. 8. 29. not command his carcase to be taken down from the tree until the sun was set, it follows, that his carcase could not be buried before sunset. And thus his crutch is fallen, and therefore all his conclusions that are built thereon are fallen with it, ●a his language is to me. Thirdly, Though Mr. Norton do cite Junius to his typical sense, yet I find by conference, that Junius not many lines before those words cited by Mr. Norton, doth plainly deny that the carcase See Junius parallel. l. 2. paral. 51. thus hanged did defile the land, although it remained unburied after sunset; he doth rather place the defiling of the land in the act of the Judges, in case they suffered the carcase to continue unburied that day, after the justice of the Law was satisfied (which was ordinarily satisfied with that days infamy) and to this purpose also doth the Geneva note speak. But I will presently produce another reason why the Judges were exhorted not to defile the land. Fourthly, It is very probable by his words, in pag. 102. that Mr. Norton doth steer his judgement in this point, of defiling the Land, by following the sense of a corrupt Translation; I mean by following the latter Editions of King James' Translation; The latter Editions of King James' Translation of Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions. for the latter Editions are corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions. It is most likely that some lefthanded person (that happily was of Mr. Nortons' judgement) did venture too boldly to alter the Translation from the integrity of the first Editions, for the first Editions, both the Church Bible, and some others do run thus, His body shall not remain all night upon the tree: But thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, for he that is hanged is accursed of God. At the end of this sentence [He that is hanged is accursed of God] they set a colon, or two pricks; And then follows another distinct sentence, thus, That thy Land be not defiled.] But in the latter Editions, there is a great corruption made, for first, The colon is omitted. And secondly, There is a parenthesis added to enclose the former sentence thus, (For he that is hanged is accursed of God.) This sentence thus enclosed doth quite alter the sense, and makes the exhortation to the Judges to concur with Mr. Nortons' sense, thus, Thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, that thy land be not defiled. Now according to this corrupt Translation, and the only reason given why the person hanged must be buried the same day, is, because else the land would be defiled. But put out the parenthesis, and put in the colon, as it was in the first Editions, and then the words will have a quite differing sense. I grant that the leaving out of the colon might happen through the Printers oversight, but the enclosing of that sentence in a parenthesis, could not be done by the Printers overfight, but doubtless that was done on purpose by some left handed person, as I observed before. I do therefore earnestly entreat the judicious Presbytery to make search into this matter, and to cause a Reformation in the next Editions, according to the integrity of the first. Fifthly, Let the Text in Deut. 21. 23. be read according to the first Editions, and then it will follow, that the only true reason why he that hanged on a tree must be buried the same day, is, (not because else the land would be defiled, but) because he that is hanged— the curse of God; so the Hebrew is translated in the margin: But there is in this sentence a defect, or a want of some word, which our Translators have supplied in the Text by the word (is) and so they make the Text to run thus, He that is hanged (is) the curse of God. But the Seventy, See Torshel on Justif. p. 131. with Aquila, and Theodotian read it thus, He is the curse of God that is hanged; and Symachus reads it thus, because for the blasphemy of God he is hanged; And the Chalde paraphrase doth render it thus: for because he sinned before the Lord, he is hanged. These several Translations and Expositions are considerable; But yet still for all this, it is a question of some moment, in what sense he that is hanged is called the curse of God? I he still the object of God's curse upon the land, as he was whilst he lived in the practice of his sin, before his hanging? surely that cannot be, seeing justice was executed, and therefore it follows, that he is now called the curse of God, because his hanging so long upon a tree, to be gazed on as a visible curse, was to show their greater detestation of his sin, and so to satisfy the curse of God's Justice, and so to pacify his wrath, and so to avert the curse, which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land, in case the Magistrates had neglected this point of justice, but because the visible curse of his sin was thus eminently put upon him by the Magistrates, by hanging up his dead body on a tree, that he might be the Spectacle thereof as long as the Sun gave any light; The Judges were admonished, not to turn Justice into cruelty, by letting his dead body to continue hanging upon the tree all night, but in any wise to bury him that day, namely, before that natural day was ended (which ended at midnight, as I have showed in my Treatise of Holy Time) and the reason is added, Because he that is hanged— the curse of God; namely, because he that is hanged hath born the visible curse, and thereby hath averted the curse of God, which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land, in case this malefactor had been suffered to live still in his sin, and so justice being satisfied he must be buried out of sight that day. And hence it follows, that he was called the curse of God The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day, was because his stoning to death and his hanging on a tree afterwards had appeased God's anger, and so removed the curse from the Land. after that God's justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia, as the sacrifice that was ordained to atone God for sin, was called sin. So then the true reason, why the Judges were admonished not to let his carcase that was hanged continue hanging all night, but to bury him the same day, to cover and hid his carcase in the earth from further public 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 than 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 atonement for the curse, and so procured God's favour to the Land. And it is most evident by three remarkable examples, that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure atonement to the land. First, The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ringleaders 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 public 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 atonement 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 atonement; 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 atone 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 ye 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 supreme 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. until 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 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 only 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 satisfy God's Justice, and pacify 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, than the tree whereon he was hanged, the sword, stone, or napkin, wherewith such a one was executed, must be buried with them, that no evil 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 be remembered, 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 days 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 days hanging on a tree, did satisfy God's 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 be 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 showed 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 Moses in his exhortation to the Judges, not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors, but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here, with the like exhortations to the Judges, to cleanse the land from moral defilements, by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners, which else would defile the whole land, yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan, in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice, and to tolerate moral sinners. See Leu. 18, 24, 25, 27, 28. Num. 35. 31, 32, 33. Psal. 1 c 6. 38. Ezra 9 11. Jer. 3. 1, 2, 9 Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal. 24. 5. etc. But it came to pass, that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal, did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed, and then the land was cleansed; for by this act of justice (though he was no Magistrate) yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way, to execute the office of a Magistrate, he is said to make Atonement, or to reconcile God to the whole land, Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33, 39 These, and such like instances, do evidence that the Judges (as they were the Representatives of the whole land) might defile the whole land, and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners, in case they did connive at them, and not execute impartial justice upon them: And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges, not to defile the land; and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to be, to bury the body before Sunset, that the land be not defiled. On the contrary, when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors, they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of God's wrath, and to make Atonement for the Land. O that this Exhortation of Moses might sit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates, both supreme and inferior, to execute impartial justice against moral sinners, that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of God's wrath, and that the land by their neglect, might not be defiled! And O that people would rightly use their liberty, when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates, to choose such as fear God, and hate sin! 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled, The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin. by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law; I wonder therefore at Mr. Nortons' unadvisedness, in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land, in case he was not buried before Sunset. I grant that he, or any other might be deceived in their judgement, by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition, as I have showed before, but the right translation, as it was in the first Editions, will not afford any such Tenent, if the Context be well weighed. 2 I grant that a great part of the people might be ceremonially defiled; yea at sometime the greatest part, but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law, but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins, as Ains. showeth in Num. 9 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved (which cannot be) that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person, or by some one act, than I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence, that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land, as well as for particular persons and places; for doubtless God would not be wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements. But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement; neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person, for he that touched a dead person, though he died in his bed, yea though he were truly godly in his life time, was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law, as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree; and he that touched any dead person in the day time, was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law, as he that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sunset, and he that touched but the limb of a dead child, was as much defiled, as he that touched a whole dead child, all that touched the dead, though never so many, were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness, until they had cleansed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19 11, 15, 16, etc. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged, to hang on the tree after Sunset, the whole land could not be defiled thereby, unless every person in the land, did come one by one to touch his dead carcase, which is absurd to think they would do, and yet it must be done, in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactor's carcase unburied after Sunset; And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws, is very short of what it ought to be, or else he would never have broached this fiction. 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sunset, did not defile the land ceremonially (see also n. 2.) for David, according to the desire of the Gibeonites, which was ordered, doubtless, according to God's special positive direction, commanded that seven of saul's sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree, and to continue hanging so long as until God should manifest himself to be attoned and reconciled to the Land, by sending rain to remove the present famine, for there was a famine in the days of David three years together; And David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites, 2 Sam. 21. 1. therefore David said to the Gibeonites, in verse 3. What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the Atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord; They answered to the King in verse 5. (doubtless by some special voluntary positive command from God) Let seven of his s●ns be delivered to us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord, namely, to appease the Lords wrath (that was so justly provoked by saul's sin against the whole land) for Saul was the Representative of the whole land, and therefore he ought to have protected, and not killed the innocent Gibeonites, as he had done out of his furious zeal, by which notorious moral sin of his, he defiled the whole land; But by the hanging of his seven sons on a tree for many days together, the land was cleansed from the guilt of saul's moral sin, and not defiled ceremonially; if it had been defiled ceremonially by their hanging on the tree after Sunset, then doubtless it would have been recorded in what manner the Land was cleansed again, but no such cleansing is recorded, therefore no such ceremonial defilement did fall upon the land by their hanging many days after sunset. I grant that this act of Justice in hanging seven of saul's sons, for his sin, was done by God's special direction, and by his supreme positive command, and not by the written Law of God, for no personal crimes were laid to the charge of these seven sons of Saul, by the Judicial Laws of Moses, and therefore except some crime against the Law of Moses had been legally proved against them, they could not by the justice of Moses revealed Laws have been put to death, much less could they have been hanged on seven trees for their father's sin, whereof they might be innocent. Conclusion. 1 Hence it doth necessarily follow, That God hath not revealed The rule of God's Relative Justice is, his secret will, a● well as his revealed will. See cha. 2. at Reply to the 5. Prop. and in P. Martyr on Rom. p. 251. and see Rutherford on the Covenant p. 26. etc. in the Scriptures all the rules of his Relative Justice, but he doth still keep a power of Relative Justice in his own hands, according to the counsel of his own Will, as it is evident by this act of Gods special Justice done upon the seven sons of Saul, that happily were innocent in the point of saul's furious slaughter of the Gibeonites. Doubtless God gave some special supreme voluntary positive command both to David and to the Gibeonites touching the hanging of the seven sons of Saul; and after the same manner he gave a special positive command to Abraham to kill his Son for a Sacrifice, or else it had been an extreme wickedness and gross disobedience to God's moral Law, to kill his Son; and the like wickedness it would have been in David and in the Gibeonites to hang up these seven Sons of Saul, without a special positive command from God. I shall not with some (saith Mr. Rutherford, in Christ's dying p. 139. at Asser. 3.) affirm that (which in the general is true) a will contrary to Gods revealed command and will, called voluntas signi (which is our moral rule to oblige us) is a sin; but a will contrary to God's decree, called voluntas bene placiti, which is not our Rule obliging (except the Lord be pleased to impose it on us as a moral Law) is a sin. Secondly, Hence it follows, that the Law of burying the person hanged the same day, was in relation to the ordinary course of Justice. Thirdly, Hence it follows, that in some extraordinary cases the supreme Judges had power to increase the length of time in hanging on a tree; As for example, David commanded that the hands and feet of Recbab and Banab should be hanged up for many days together, now by the Levitical Law every member of a dead body did defile as much as the whole body, See Ainsw. in Numb. 19 11. And therefore David knew that their hanging many days on a tree, would not defile the land ceremonially, but that it would cleanse it from their moral defilement, 2 Sam. 4. 11, 12. See also our larger Annotations on ver. 12. From these sundry considerations it is evident, That Mr. Nortons' typical sense of Dan. 21. 23, on which he doth build all his Arguments, doth fail him, and therefore all his Arguments do prove no better but groundless fallacies; or to use his own language, he doth but put an abominable inference upon the Apostles, and upon the Spirit of God speaking by him. The sum of what I have said in the two former Sections, may be drawn up into this Argument. That Act of Justice which doth cleanse the Land from moral defilements, cannot be said to defile the Land ceremonially. But the hanging of malefactors on a tree by an act of Justice, till after sunset, doth cleanse the land. Therefore, that act of Justice in letting such malefactors hang till after sunset, doth not defile the Land ceremonially. SECT. III. BUt Mr. Norton doth still labour to prove, that the curse of hanging on a tree did typify, that Christ did bear the moral curse on the cross for our redemption. For saith he in p. 95. There were malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law of Deut. 21. 23. Yet we read not that they were accursed, during the space between the giving of this Law, and the passion of Christ, a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed; In Judea no person how great a malefactor soever, if not hanged, was thus accursed. The person hanged was equally accursed, whether he was hanged alive or dead, whether he was hanged after this manner or after that, Jewish or Roman; whether his crime were more heinous or not so heinous; yea, for aught appeareth, though he were innocent, yet if hanged judicially, he was accursed, since the passion of Christ, hanging in Judea is not ceremonially accursed. Reply 8. Some of these unsound notions I find in Weams third Volume on Dan. 21. and also in his four Degenerations, 327. where he pleads, to little purpose, for the typical sense as Mr. Norton doth: But from all Mr. Nortons' imaginary notions heaped up together, what is the inference, but this? That the curse in Deut. 21. 23. did typify that Christ was to redeem us from the curse of the Law, by bearing the moral curse in our stead on the cross. But I have sufficiently showed already that this inference is builded but upon false premises, and therefore all the Arguments used to prove it do vanish to nothing. Secondly, But if his inference had been no more but this, That therefore the Law in Deut. 21. 23. was peculiar to the Commonwealth of the Jews (and not common to other Nations) it might have been granted to him. And the like may be said of divers other political Laws of Moses, that they were in force only in the land of Canaan, and that neither before Moses time, nor after Christ's death, they were in force, etc. I grant also that there were many Judicial Laws that were partly civil and partly ceremonial, and so it may be granted that the Law in Den. 21. 23. had some ceremonial considerations about the burial of the dead body, for it defiled all that touched it. But yet it will not thence follow, that it defiled the whole land, in case i● continued unburied till after sunset, and therefore it did not typify that Christ should bear the moral and eternal curse on the tree for our redemption, which is the very point that Mr. Norton hath undertaken to make good from Deut. 21. 23. This Exposition (saith Mr. Norton in p. 95, 96.) in making the man that was hanged on a tree, a ceremonial curse. And Christ hanged on a tree a moral curse; is both generally received, and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith, which is a rule of interpreting Scripture. Reply 9 It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would persuade his Reader, it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones, that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption. First, I do not find that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments, or the second death. It is objected, saith Peter Martyr, that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9 1. 2. in p. 240. did not only give his life upon the cross, but also that he was made a curse, and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father, when he cried, My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? And after a short Answer to another Objection; he Answers thus, The second doubt (saith he) is concerning Christ; for although he for our sakes suffered death, yet was he not in very deed separated from God, but his humanity was helped when he suffered on the cross all extreme pains; he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law, which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake, and he was counted as a blasphemer, &c, and being as it were convicted of these crimes, he was condemned. But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God. In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross, and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree; he was made a curse, saith he, as touching the punishment of the Law, in Deut. 21. 23. and, saith he, he was counted as a Blasphemer, and an ungodly person; and being, as i● were, convicted of these crimes, he was condemned, but yet was he not by eternal damnation, (namely, by suffering that, which to the creature is eternal damnation) separated from God. By this answer it is evident, That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree, just as Chrisostom and Theophilact spoke, as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said, ere while, that his exposition was generally received, but here he may see two of the ancient Divines, and Peter Martyr cited against him, and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth. Fourthly, Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other (penal hell or) infernum, but his bodily death, as I have cited him in Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly, I have also diligently perused all Tindals works, and the works of Jo. Frith, and of Dr. Barns, being three godly Martyrs, and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction, and by occasion thereof, they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ, and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons' sense of Hell torments, but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice. Sixthly, I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. norton's Tenent of Hell Torments. But I have not throughly searched them, but in a great part I have, and can find no such thing in them; Let them that please search them fully. Seventhly, Mr. Broughton and his followers, which to this day are many, that are both pious and learned; and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross, as no Article of their faith. I will cite only two passages out of Mr. Broughton, besides what I have cited in the Dialogue. 1 (Saith he) That assertion, that our Lord suffered Hell Torments, In his positions on Hades p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture; true modesty (saith he) would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption. 2 (Saith he) to say that our Lord's soul tasted the second death, is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord, and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22, 25. (saith he) in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalypses, is taken from the Thalmudistes, and therefore by them it must be expounded: And in their sense (saith he) it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God. ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God; and agreeable to this, I have showed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God. Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa. 22. and Rabbins infinitely. But saith Mr. Norton (to avoid manifest blasphemy) Christ was never in God's hatred. Therefore he might as well conclude, that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell, nor the second Death, seeing they are not inflicted without God's hatred. And saith Bro. in Revel. p. 301. N. N. miss most Atheanly, more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam, to say that our Lord was in the second Death. 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith, the Chalde doth thus expound it, Let Reuben not die the second death. And saith he, Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus, Let Reuben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall die in the world to come. And saith he in Psal. 49. 11. The Chalde saith, That wicked wise men die the second death, and are adjudged to Gehenna. And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa. 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat. of Repentance, c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith, And this is the cutting off written in the Law, as it is said (in Numb. 15. 31.) That soul shall be cut off, he shall be cut off; which we have heard expounded thus, cut off in this world, and cut off in the world to come. 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith, this phrase, the second Death is four times used in this book, and it seems to be taken from the Jews, who use it proverbially, for final, utter, irreversible destruction. So in the Jerusalem Targum, Deut. 33. 6. Let Reuben live, and let him not die the second death, by which the wicked dye in the world to come. 4 Mr. Broughton saith, That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra, seeing the increase of Sadduces, In his Reduct. on Dan 9 they did frame divers terms to express the world to come, both in relation to the godly, and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces, and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve, and follow; and they made the term, Second-death, to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come, they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin, and the death of the body, to be the death of this world: And Austin speaks just ●s the Dialogue doth (as I have 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 he evades his answer, to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument (against Christ's 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 God's appointment. But on the contrary, he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world, by God's 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 fly to God's extraordinary dispensation. 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. norton's Tenent, though for De Recon. pec. par. 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more clearly 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 he denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings, as I have showed in the former Chapter. 9 I find by conference with such as have been well 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 God's truth) even when that doctrine bore 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 Tenants, as some (to blast the truth) are apt to say, that scarce any deny Christ's suffering of God's 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 controversy 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 see infamed, that the carcase of such, in case they be not buried before Sunset, shall the 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 less are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently showed 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 Sunset, did not defile the land; and that sometimes hanging many days 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 less have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition, which cannot be true, unless the first be true. But yet Mr. Norton makes a great show 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 man's 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 Leu. 6. 21. in Psal. 69. 4. Besides, I received some letters from him in his life-time about this controversy, 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 he 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 tremble to say so, and yet Mr. Norton approves of Luther for saying so in page 92, 93. who durst allege this place, saith Luther, Accursed is every one that hangs on a Tree, and apply it to Christ. Like as Paul then applied this sentence to Christ, even so, may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27. Chapter of Deuteronomy, but also may gather up all the Curses of Moses Law together, and expound the same of Christ; for as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his person, so is he also in all the rest; and as he is guilty in this general Law, in that he is made a curse for us, and hanged upon the Cross as a wicked man, a blasphemer, a murderer, and a traitor, even so is he guilty also in all others; for all the Curses of the Law, are heaped together▪ and laid upon him. Hence it follows from Luther's words, approved by Mr. Norton, that the said Curses mentioned by Dr. Preston, were laid upon Christ; or else Mr. Norton must not approve of this speech of Luther. Mr. Rutherfurd propounds this Question; How could Christ In Christ's dying. p. 560, 561. be a Curse? There is (saith he) a thing intrinsically and fundamentally cursed, and there is a thing extrinsecally and effectively cursed: Now (saith he) none but he that sinneth, is intrinsically and fundamentally cursed; for in this regard, it is a personal evil, Christ was not intrinsically abominable, and execrable to God, etc. This distinction of extrinsecally and effectively cursed, was contrived only for the sake of Christ, or else doubtless, he would have given some other instance of his assertion. I grant, That Mr. Rutherfurd did hold that Christ did suffer the moral Curse, as Mr. Norton doth; But yet he held it arbytrary to the Lawgiver to execute the curse on Christ, rather in the equivalency than in the proper kind of it; and therefore he saith, That some punishments may well be changed, the one for the other, as Gods hating and abominating the sinner, was changed into Gods forsaking of Christ, when he complained, My God, my God, etc. And secondly, saith he, Christ was not intrinsically cursed as the sinner who sinneth in person is; and then he concludes, that the kind of punishment which Christ suffered, was arbytrary to the Lawgiver. But Mr. Norton denies it to be arbytrary, for saith he, in page 10. The Omnipotent had so limited himself by his Law Mr. Norton holds satisfaction by Christ's suffering the essential curse in kind, and yet he holds alteration to equivalency. in Gen. 2. 17. that he could not alter; and saith he in page 146. 143. though in many typical redemptions, God accepted a price, and spared life, yet not so in the Antitype; No price (saith he) can dispense in the case of the Antitype: And saith he, in page 122. Christ was tormented without any forgiveness, God spared him nothing of the due debt, he had not the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering that was due according to justice: And saith he, in page 23. he suffered the whole, essential, properly penal death of the Curse, that is, the whole essential punishment thereof, was executed upon Christ. By these fundamental Propositions, he must reject any alteration to the way of equivalency; and yet he is sometimes forced to fly to equivalency, as I have noted it in Chap. 4. I confess, I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth keep no more exactly to his principles of payment in kind, but that he is forced to fly sometimes to equivalency. The rest that follows in Mr. Norton on Gal. 3. 13. is but the same in true substance that hath already been examined, and confounded: And that which follows about the Priesthood, and Sacrifice of Christ, I have examined at the end of my Examination of Psal. 22. 1. and Mat. 27. 46. CHAP. XVI. SECT. 1. Mr. Norton propounds this Question, in p. 56. How do you prove this sorrow and complaint (of Christ) to have proceeded from the fear of a bodily death? Reply 1. THe Dialogue doth prove it by two Reasons. First, Saith the Dialogue, do but consider what a horrid thing, to true humane nature, the death of the body is, and then consider that Christ had a true humane nature, like to all other men, except in the point of sin, and therefore why should not he be troubled with the fear of death, as much as his humane nature could bear, without sin? Mr. Norton doth Answer thus, Because regular affections, such as Christ's were, moved according to the nature of the object, so much therefore as bodily death is a less evil than eternal death, so much the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithal, is less than that trouble which it is capable of suffering, in case of conflicting with eternal death. Reply 2. He saith, That Christ conflicted with eternal death, and that the regular trouble of his humane nature, was in relation to that death: They may believe his bare word that please; and he knows that the Dialogue doth all along deny it, and I have also taken away his proof in other places; therefore the reason of the Dialogue doth stand good and firm still. The second Reason of the Dialogue is this, Do but consider that all mankind ought to desire and endeavour to preserve their natural lives as much as in them lies, in the use of means, in obedience to the sixth command, and therefore seeing Christ, as he was true man, could not prevent his death by the use of means, he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death, as much as any other man. Mr. Norton in p. 57 doth answer thus. It is more than manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man, as concerning mere natural death. Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do, because his pure nature was not subject to death as ours is. In his War & Peace, ch. 36. and I have cited Mr. Ball to this sense in ch. 17. at Reply 25. Christ both in his combat with Satan, & also in the formality of his death, by his Priestly order, did all by way of Covenant, and not by condition of nature. Reply 3. It is more than manifest that he was to be troubled with the fear of a bodily death more than any other man, because the constitution of his nature and natural spirits, was more pure than the nature of other men, and therefore he must manifestly abhor it more than other men, for he was not made subject to death by nature as all other men are; all other men by reason of original sin are born the bondslaves of Satan, Death is their Birthright, and therefore they abhor it not in a regular manner, but with a dull slavish spirit, but because Christ's nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin, therefore he was not born the bondslave of death. Death hath no right (saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121.) where there is no sin, unless we will say that God doth punish the innocent, and hence it follows, that the pure constitution of his nature must needs be toubled with the regular fear of his bodily death, more than other men can be. His death saith Grotius was not determined by any Law (as Mr. Norton affirms) but by agreement, and as it were by special Covenant made with his Father, who upon that condition promised him not only the highest glory, but a seed to serve him for ever. This speech of Grotius is worth our marking. And in ch. 2. I have showed more at large that the death of Christ was a death of Covenant, and not of condition of nature, as ours is. And in relation to his Covenant, and to the rich reward of his death by God's Covenant, his rational soul did always desire to die, but yet that desire did no way hinder his natural and vital soul from fearing the ill usage of his pure nature by Satan and his instruments. Secondly, I find this to be a received maxim among the learned, that the bodily pains which Christ endured, were See Mr. Burges on Just. p 8. & Dr. Williams in his seven Golden Candlestick, p 483. more sensible to his nature, than the like pains can be to other men, because of the most excellent temper, and tender Constitution of his body, and therefore his vital and sensitive soul (which is the bond of union between the immortal soul and the body) was quicker in operation than other men's spirits can be, with the dread and fear of his ignominious death. That speech of our Saviour is emphatical, in Heb. 10. 5. A Heb. 10. 5. The excellent temper, and tender constitution of Christ's humane nature made him more sensible of fear, shame, and pain, than other men can be. body hast thou prepared me, namely, by sending the Holy Ghost to prepare the seed of the woman for my humane nature, that it may be of a more excellent temper, and tender constitution than any other man's can be, and therefore that it may be touched with the objects of fear, ignominy, and pain more eminently than other men's can be: and therefore as it behoved God to prepare such a body on purpose for him; so it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren, and to be touched in an eminent manner with the sense of our passions and infirmities, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, and so in particular he must be eminently touched with the fears of death, Heb. 2. 14. 17. And so it became God the Father to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through sufferings, and how else did it become God to consecrate him, but by making his obedience perfect through sufferings; and therefore said Christ to God, A body hast thou prepared me, thou hast moulded it, and organised it on purpose to be touched with the tender sense and feeling of man's infirmities in my sensitive soul, the better to exemplify the perfection of my patience, and obedience through all my sufferings; It is no marvel then, that seeing the constitution of his body and spirits, was thus transcendently tender, that his soul-troubles are expressed by all the Evangelists, to be more than other men's can be, as concerning their mere bodily sufferings and death. But saith Mr. Norton in page 57 Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin, do not conflict only with death, other men conflicting with natural death, conflict also often with eternal death, Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death; how then do you say without any distinction, that he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man? Reply 4. I reply to the Interrogation that Christ's troubled fear of death was wholly Regular, but other men's fear, is for Christ feared his ignominious death after the rule of fear, & not after the example of this or that man. the most part irregular; Christ's fear therefore must not be compared to this, or that particular man's fear, as Mr. Nortons' kind of arguing doth import to the less wary Reader; but his fear must be considered in relation to that disease of evil which was opposite to the perfection of his nature; for by the rule of God's Creation, Adam and Christ were perfect in nature, and not subject to curses, and therefore according to the Rule of Contraries, the more ignominy and pains of death they must suffer, the more they must abhor it more than other men that are the slaves of death by nature; the soul and body in the first creation, were united in all perfection after God's Image, and therefore all ignominy, torments, and death must needs be an abhorring in an higher degree than it can be to other men, and therefore it was most suitable to Christ's regular constitution to manifest his exceeding troubled fear of his ignominious, and painful lingering death, more than any other man can do in a regular manner. But saith Mr. Norton in page 57 Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death, and be doth very often charge the Dialogue with this expression of a natural death, as in page 156, 158, 159, 164, etc. Reply 5. This I believe is a false charge; I do not remember Christ's death was not a natural death. that the Dialogue doth any where call the death of Christ a natural death; but it doth carefully shun that term, as altogether unfit, because the death of Christ was supernatural. The Dialogue holds that Christ was not subject to a natural death, as sinners are from the curse of original sin in Gen. 3. 19 as I have showed a little before, and shall do it again towards the end of this Chapter. Secondly, But yet the Dialogue doth often call the death of Christ a true bodily death (in opposition to Mr. Nortons' spiritual death) with this explanation, that his death was such a kind of bodily death, that it was also a mediatorial death and sacrifice. If Mr. Norton had not been more than ordinary blinded with prejudice against the Dialogue, he could not so often have mistaken the words and sense of the Dialogue, as I have noted it also elsewhere, yea in page 153. he saith, That Christ suffered not only a natural, but a spiritual death. But saith Mr. Norton in page 57 Christ's mere inability as man, to prevent death by the use of means, or other men's inability thereto, and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part; neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life, but on the contrary, to give up themselves to death, such as was the present case of Christ, and was long before the case of Isaak, and sometimes hath been the case of Martyrs, who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy, cannot be looked at as a reason of his, or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death. Reply 6. I shall speak the briefer to this inference, because I have already showed in Reply 3. That the humane nature of Christ was privileged from death, and from the fear of death, and from all other miseries by nature; But yet such was his infinite and eternal love to the Elect that were fallen in Adam, that according to the Council of the Trinity, he entered into a Covenant with his Father, to take upon him the seed of the deceived woman, with our infirmities, and to enter the Lists, and to combat with Satan that had a Commission given him to pierce him in the footsoals, with an ignominious death, and therefore he covenanted to manifest the truth of his humane nature, in fearing and abhorring such a kind of usage for the salvation sake of all the Elect: And saith Rutherfurd on the Covenant, page 342. God by a permissive decree, appointed the crucifying of the Lord of life, but as touching his approving and commanding will, he did neither will the crucifying of his Son, but forbids, and hates it as execrable murder. 1 Then consider Christ's troubled natural fear of death materially, with all the circumstances of ignominy and tortures from the Devil and his Instruments, according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. and then it was his duty to stir up his sensitive soul to be tenderly, and eminently touched with a trembling fear, and with a manifest abhorring of this kind of usage. 2 But consider his ignominious and painful death formally, namely, with the reward that was annexed to it by God's Covenant, which was that he should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect; and then I say, It was the duty of his rational soul not to fear, but earnestly to desire to perform this combat with Satan, and to suffer him to do his worst; and therefore in this regard, he said, I delight to do thy will, O God, thy Law is in my heart, Heb. 10. And I desire to eat this Passover, this Type of my death, before I suffer. 3 Christ's humane nature knew perfectly by the revealed will of God, in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil against him, with an express permission to use him as a sinful Malefactor, and to pierce him in the footsoals, and in this combat, he knew it was the declared will of God, that he should encounter him (not with the power of his Godhead, but) with his humane nature only, as it was accompanied with our infirmities, of fear, sorrow, etc. and therefore by his Covenant he was bound to express and manifest his troubled natural fear of such an unnatural usage, and accordingly he declared it to his three Apostles that he took with him to be witnesses, that he did then begin to be sorrowful, and very heavy, saying unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even to the death, Mat. 26, 37, 38, 39 Mat. 26. 38, 39 and then he went a little further from them, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; and this request he made three times over, because it was of absolute necessity that that cup should pass from him, namely, the cup of his natural fear. I have showed in the Dialogue, page 46. that the word Cup, is put for a measure, or portion of any thing, either of joy and comfort, or of ignominy and pain, or of fear and sorrow, and at this time he was very heavy and sorrowful; and therefore the cup that he doth so earnestly deprecate, is the cup, or measure, or portion of his present natural fear. He doth not in this place (as I apprehend) deprecate his ignominious and painful death, but the fear and dread which his sensitive soul had of it at this present, and he was heard and delivered from his natural fear, or else he could not have laid down his life by his own will, desire and power, as he had covenanted, Joh. 10. 17, 18. But as soon as he had obtained a confirmation by his sweeting prayers against this his natural fear, then when the band was come to apprehend him, he was fearless, and said unto Peter, Put up thy sword again into its place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more Mat. 26. 52, 53, 54. than twelve legions of Angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that say, Thus it must be: The Scriptures in Gen. 3. 15. etc. say, that I must be thus apprehended, condemned, and executed by the power of Satan and his instruments, Thus it must be, I must be thus used, as you shall now see me to be by these Arch-instruments of Satan; yea thus it must be of necessity, even by the necessity of the voluntary Decree and Covenant, and therefore I must be voluntary also in the performance of this combat, and not admit of any obstruction to my Combatter by thy sword, he must by Gods declared permission, have his liberty to do his worst to provoke my patience, and I must do my duty by continuing constant in my obedience, through all his assaults: But John doth relate our Saviour's Joh. 18. 11. words to Peter thus, Put up thy sword into thy sheath, the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? namely, that portion of my ignominious and painful sufferings which my Father hath appointed me to undergo, as he hath declared it in Gen. 3. 15. Here you see that Christ did not now dread this cup of his ignominious and painful sufferings, as he did the fear of this cup in Matth. 26 37. Then it was necessary before he prayed, that his natural infirmities of fear and sorrow should appear, but now it was as necessary after he had obtained his request, that his natural infirmities should not appear; and therefore he said to Peter, Shall I not drink it? 4 I have showed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christ's desire that the cup might pass from him, was no sin, because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command (as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm) for if his death had been required by a moral command, than his desire that the cup might pass from him, had been a sin (and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also) but God's command was a mere positive command, and that kind of command, saith Mr. Rutherfurd, did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life, seeing he submitted his desire to Gods will: The like instance he gives of Abraham's desire, when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice: And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments, Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies (as the Dialogue doth) that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments; he expounds it (●s the Dialogue doth) on the Covenant, page 362. But still I rather think (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 joint 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 Christ's divine nature, there was De Tribus Elo●im, part. 2. l. 3. c. 9 And see Weams in his Portraiture, p. 191, 192. always one and the same will of the Father, and the Son, concerning his death and Passion; yea as Christ was man, he was always obedient to his Father; and therefore he said, I always 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 Father's Will; for the Father would have Christ to be 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, he did not contradict his Father's will, because the Father would have this (natural) fear and horror to be in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 148. saith Christ's 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 Christ's 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 die, and Christ had been unwilling, or had never so little refused, than their Wills indeed had been repugnant; but in reference to the same end, namely, our salvation, Christ always had the same will that his Father had. In these words Zanchy doth show that it was absolutely necessary for Christ, in regard of his true humane nature, to be 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 be 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 die, 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 be the cause of his horror in the Garden, as Mr. Norton doth. 2 Saith he, If there be any (whether Martyrs of Christ) to whom it is pleasant and delectable to die, 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 show more fear of death than any Martyrs, namely, First, For the clearer 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 show more fear of death than any man; And, saith he, Your reasons are but deceptions. Reply 8. If Christ had showed no more natural fear of death than some men do, it might well have been doubted whether he had been true man or no, seeing sundry Heretics have called it into question, notwithstanding he gave such large testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as he did. I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal. 22. 1. We further briefly say, That Christ was pleased to yield to sense (or feeling) so far, 1 That he might show himself a perfect true man; a thing not easily believed, 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 fear of death, When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason in Martyrs, than no man can express what conflict there is between nature and death which conflict was not in Christ. whiles they have had the use of their sanctified reason, yet afterwards as soon as their torments have astonished nature, and by that means deprived them of the use of their sanctified reason, than the same soul that was so fearless at first, doth begin to show the terrors of nature at the dominion of death, and then no man can express what conflicts of fear and horror there is in nature against death; but the manner of Christ's death was far otherwise, for at the utmost point of death, Christ's humane nature did not conflict with fear and horror, as all Martyrs do: But he expressed his natural fear and horror of death before hand in the Garden as it were in private to three of his Disciples, that they might record it as a proof of his true humane nature; for he did manifest it, First, By his speeches before he prayed. And secondly, in the time of his prayers: but not after his prayers, there was no mention of any more fear: for by his prayers he had obtained a confirmation of his nature against the fear of his ignominious usage, and against the fear of death; I say it once more, that it may be the better marked, that after his prayers, he never shown any fear of death more; yea when he was at the very point of death upon the Cross, he did not express any natural struggling or striving with the pangs of death, for there was no pangs in his death, because the formality of it was supernatural, and therefore his nature was not now subject to strive with the pangs of death, as nature doth in all Martyrs; the formality of his death did far surpass the death of all Martyrs, because he had obtained a deliverance, and a confirmation from his natural fear of death, by his strong crying, prayers, and tears in the Garden, Heb. 5. 7. So that when he came to breath out his soul in the open view of all men, both of his persecutors, and of his godly friends, he did without Heb. 5. 7. any trembling or struggling of nature, instantly, and quietly, breath out his soul by his own Priestly power, even whiles he was in strength of nature, and this I hope is contrary to the course of nature in the death of all Martyrs; And by this last act of Christ in his death, he declared himself to be our Mediator in his death, and to be our Highpriest in his death and sacrifice. Lord (saith Cyprian) thou didst profess thyself before thine Cyprian de Pas. Christi. Apostles to be sorrowful unto death, and for exceeding grief, didst pour forth a bloody sweat: But (saith he) I admire thee, O Lord, that being once fastened to the Cross, amidst the condemned, to be now, neither sorrowful, nor fearful, but despising the punishments, with thy hands lifted up, to triumph over Amaleck. Here you see that Cyprians judgement was, That Christ was neither sorrowful nor fearful for his death, when he hung upon the Cross, as he was in the Garden, and therefore he held that Christ had overcome this fear and horror of death by his prayers in the Garden. And secondly, That in the Garden, he did pour forth a bloody sweat, for fear of his bodily death. Thirdly, He held that Christ triumphed over Amaleck, that is to say, over Satan, by his unconquerable patience on the Cross. Conclusion from the Premises. Hence it follows, that the two reasons of the Dialogue afore cited, stand stronger and firmer than they did, notwithstanding Mr. Norton hath endeavoured to shake them to nothing by his windy reasoning. But in Page 58. Mr. Norton doth vindicate Calvin from the Dialogue sense to his sense. Reply 9 What the Dialogue cited out of Mr. Calvin touching Christ's troubled fear of death, where his words run without any mention of Hell-torments, was at the first useful to me, and I thought that the same speeches might be of the like good use to others, especially seeing the Dialogue doth annex unto the former speeches of Calvin, his expressions of Christ's troubled soul-sorrows for the death of Lazarus by his weeping and groaning in spirit, and troubling himself, Joh. 11. 33, 35. In which soul-troubles so pathetically manifested, no man can imagine that he suffered any thing in soul from God's immediate wrath, or from Hell-torments; and therefore why should we not likewise expound his other soul-sorrows to be in relation to his ignominious and painful death? But seeing Mr. Norton is not willing to accept his words, as I cited them, to the sense of the Dialogue, let him take Mr. Calvin on his side; the truth of the Dialogue I hope, may stand well enough without him, and in case he shall except against any other that I have cited for illustration, I shall not much pass, as long as I cite the Scripture sense according to the Context. But for all this, it seems that Mr. Norton is not very well pleased with Mr. calvin's judgement; for in page 61. Mr. Norton doth cite him on purpose to confute him. Mr. Calvin (saith he) doth affirm that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torment of the damned, and forsaken men. But, saith Mr. Norton, because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ, latter Writers choose rather to say, That he suffered the punishment of the Elect, who deserved to be damned, then that he suffered the punishment of the damned. Reply 10. This distinction may please such as had rather take man's word without the Scripture sense, than take the pains to dig out the true Scripture sense. But I wonder what difference there is betwixt this speech of Calvin, that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torments of the damned, and forsaken men; and this speech of Mr. Nortons' in page 56. That Christ conflicted with eternal death; and that speech in page 213. That Christ was accursed with a penal and eternal curse? For my part, I can find no difference in them, but I will leave such nice distinctions to them that love them, and that can discern the difference, for I cannot. SECT. II. Mr. Nortons' Answer in page 62. to the Dialogues Exposition of Mark. 10. 39 Examined. Mar. 10. 39 Mat. 26. 39 Mat. 20. 22, 23. THe words in the Dialogue run thus in page 46. our Saviour doth explain the quality of those sorrows which he suffered at the time of his death, unto the two sons of Zebedeus, he tells them, They must drink of his cup, and be baptised with his baptism, Mar. 10. 39 He tells them, That they must be conformable to the quality and kind of his sufferings, though perhaps there might be some difference in the degree of their sufferings, and he doth explain the kind of his sufferings by a twofold expression. 1 He tells them, They must drink of his cup, that is to say, of the same bitter portion of death. 2 He tells them, That they must be baptised with his baptism, that is to say, They must be put to death by the malice of Tyrants, as he must be; and this is expressed by the metaphor of Baptism, for baptising is a diving or drowning of the whole body under water; and therefore Christ ordained Baptism as a typical sign of drowning the body of sin in his blood; but the baptising of Tyrants was used for no other end, but to drown men's bodies to death; and in this respect Christ saith, I am entered into the deep waters, Psal. 69. 2, 15. and in this very sense the Apostle saith, Else what shall they do that are baptised for dead (namely, what shall they do that are baptised with death, as Martyrs are) if the dead rise not at all, why then are they baptised for dead? 1 Cor. 15. 29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptised 1 Cor. 15. 29. with death, if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truth's sake, being therein conformable to the death of Christ, Phil. 3. 10, 11. By these two expressions (saith the Dialogue) which are synonimas or equivalent, our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be, namely, no other, but such only, as they should one day suffer from the hands of Tyrants. And hence it follows, 1 That the troubled fear, which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ in the Garden, must be understood of his natural fear of death, and not of his fear of his Father's wrath. 2 Hence it follows, that all the (outward) sufferings of Christ, were from man's wrath and malice incited by the Devil, according to Gods decree declared in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt pierce him in the footsoals. Mr. Norton in page 62. doth thus answer to the Dialogues Exposition. Herein (saith he) is a fallacy, confounding such things as should be divided: This Text, saith Piscator, is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. Reply 11. It is most evident, that Mr. Nortons' distinction is a fallacy, because it confounds things that differ, for it confounds the death of Christ's immortal soul, with the death of his body, & so he makes Christ to suffer two kinds of death formally, and so consequently he makes Christ to make two kinds of satisfaction formally; But saith the Dialogue, No other death but his bodily death is to be understood by Mar. 10. 39 & our larger Mar. 10. 39 Mr. Nor●on saith that Christ suffered a twofold death in p. 155 70. 174. and he makes his immortal soul to be spiritually dead in p. 159. and makes it the second death in p. 115. Annotation doth fully concur with the Dialogues exposition on Matth. 20. 22, 23. without any such exception, as Mr. Norton makes from Piscator: But I wonder that Mr. Norton dares honour Piscator so much as to take this exposition upon trust from him alone, seeing he makes the form of justification to lie only in remission of sins, which opinion of his, Mr. Norton doth damn for heresy, and yet now he so much honours Piscator, as to cite his judgement above for his exposition of this Text. But for the better trying out of the truth, let us a little more narrowly search into the sense of Mar. 10. 39 by a clear conference with the context, which I account to be a good rule for the trying out of a sound exposition. 1 James and John the sons of Zebedee desired of Christ, that the one might sit at his right hand, and the other at his left in his glorious Monarchy. 2 Thereupon Christ demanded of them, Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of? they said, We can; then Christ replied, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I shall drink of. Hence it follows, That seeing the cup of Christ was filled with the vindicative wrath of God, as Mr. Norton affirms, than James and John must drink of the same cup; for said Christ to them, Ye shall drink of the same cup that I shall drink of. But I think Mr. Norton himself will say, that they did not drink of the cup of God's vindicative wrath, but of the cup of an ignominious and violent death only. Therefore it hence follows by the like consequence, that the death of Christ was of the same kind. But saith Mr. Norton in page 63. Christ suffered both as a Martyr, and as a Satisfier; the sons of Zebedee (saith he) drank of the cup of Martyrdom, not of the cup of Satisfaction or Redemption; James and John were asleep while Christ was drinking that cup. Reply 12. I grant, that Christ suffered as a Satisfier; but the only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction, was from the mutual Covenant that was made between the Trinity, it was their agreement that made the death of Christ to be a sacrifice of full satisfaction, or to be the full price of The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdom was the Covenant between the Trinity. our redemption, as I have showed also in Chap. 9 but because God made no such Covenant with the sons of Zebedee, therefore though they drunk the cup of a violent death as Christ did, yet it was not for satisfaction, it was no more but the cup of Martyrdom in them: But as I said before, because the death of Christ was a death of Covenant, it was not only a death of Martyrdom, but it was a death of satisfaction also. Secondly, I have often showed from the first declared Will and Covenant of the Trinity, in Gen. 3. 15. that Christ covenanted to take upon him our nature of the seed of the deceived woman, and in that nature to break the Devil's Headplot by continuing obedient in his combat, notwithstanding Satan's foul play to provoke him to some impatience, and in that obedience, he covenanted to make his soul a sacrifice, which God covenanted to reward with the redemption of all the Elect; and this was fully declared unto Adam by a typical sacrifice; and God gave the Devil full liberty to do his worst to disturb his patience, and so to spoil his obedience, and so to prevent his death from being a sacrifice, and so to preserve his Headplot from being broken; and this is comprehended in that sentence, Thou Satan shalt pierce him in the footsoals; but God could not have declared all this, both to the Devil, and unto Adam, unless the second person had beforehand covenanted to undertake this conflict with the Devil, and his instruments, and unless God the Father had also covenanted, that the obedience of the seed of the woman, both in his conflict with Satan, and in his death and sacrifice, should break the Devil's Headplot, and so should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect. But thirdly, Observe this, that I do not say that the sufferings of Christ, which he endured from the malice of Satan, and his instruments, were full satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death; but on the contrary, I say, that no sufferings, though never so great, can make satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death, by the separation of his soul from his body by his own Priestly power; and therefore if it could be supposed that Christ had born the moral curse of Hell-torments (according to Mr. norton's Tenent) for a thousand years together on the Cross, yet without this his last Priestly act of death and sacrifice, it could not have been a sufficient price for our redemption; and the reason thereof is most clear and evident, because God had ordained by his eternal Council and Covenant, declared in Gen. 3. 15. that nothing should be accepted for full satisfaction to break the Devil's Headplot, without the true bodily death of the seed of the woman, made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power; he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice, Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9 14, 25, 26, 28. Heb. 10. 9, 10, 12. Fourthly, Yet I grant, notwithstanding that all his sufferings from Satan, and his instruments, were ordained for the trial of All Christ's sufferings were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice. his obedience, and so for his consecration to his Priestly Sacrifice, and in that respect it was as necessary to his sacrifice, as the consecration of the Priest was to the making of a sacrifice under the Law, I say, that both his consecration by his ignominious usage, and by his long lingering tortures on the Cross, and the formality of his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power, must be considered as two distinct Articles of the eternal Covenant, though they must also be conjoined for the making of that sacrifice, that God covenanted to accept for Heb 2. 10. Heb. 59 Joh. 19 30. The sacrifice of Christ doth properly lie in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power. See also further in Reply 13. man's redemption; his sufferings as a Martyr from the malice of Satan was ordained for the trial of his perfect obedience, and so consequently for the perfecting of his Priestly consecration, as these Scriptures do witness, Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 8, 9 Heb. 7. 28. And when Moses put the blood of consecration on Aaron's right Ear, Thumb, and great Toe, it figured, saith Ains. on Leu. 8. 24. the sufferings of Christ, whose hands and feet were pierced; and then as soon as his consecration was finished, which was finished by finishing all the sufferings that were written of him; then he declared the same by saying, It is finished, Joh. 19 30. And then at the same instant, without any delay, he first bowed his head, and then he made his life a sacrifice by giving up the ghost; and this was in a differing order from that death that comes by the course of nature, for by the course of nature men do hold up the head as long as life is in the body, and then as soon as the soul is departed, the head falls; but Christ, while he was in the strength of nature, did first bow his head, and then he gave up the ghost: And thus he performed his death as the Mediator of the New Covenant by his own Priestly power in both his natures, according to the eternal Covenant. And in this last act by virtue of the said eternal Covenant lies, 1 The formality of his death. 2 The formality of his sacrifice: And 3 The formality of all satisfaction, Heb. 9 14, 15, 16. And therefore from hence it necessarily follows, that till this last act was done, no sufferings that went before (though he be supposed by Mr. Norton to have suffered the essential torments of Hell) though never so long, and never so strong, could be accounted of God for satisfaction for man's Redemption. Fifthly, All this was made manifest to fallen Adam, by Gods declared decree, in Gen. 3. 15. as I have formerly noted, and I think it needful to repeat it again with some enlargement. 1 God proclaimed an utter enmity between Christ the seed of the Woman, and the Devil in the Serpent, and in all other instruments of his malice. 2 He told the Devil (that he might arm himself as well as he could) that the seed of that deceived Woman should break his Headplot, by continuing obedient to all the positive Laws of the combat, notwithstanding his foul play, and his malicious stratagems to disturb him in the course of his obedience. 3 He told the Devil, that he should have full liberty to use him as a vild Malefactor, and at last to pierce him in the footsoals on the Cross to disturb his patience, and so to spoil his obedience, and so to hinder his death from being a sacrifice of satisfaction, if he could. In this manner, I say, God declared the plotform of the eternal counsel and Covenant of the Trinity for man's redemption; and therefore whatsoever is spoken after this of the Messiah, and of the work of Redemption, it must have reference to this first declaration; for all that is spoken after this is but a comment upon this, and all Christ's sufferings are included in these two words, 1. He shall be the seed of the woman, and he shall be touched both inwardly with the feeling of our infirmities in all his voluntary passions. Secondly, Outwardly, Thou Satan shalt pierce him in the footsoals; And hence it is plain, that all his outward sufferings 〈◊〉 to be from Satan and his instruments, and all his inward sufferings from himself. These things are so plain in the Text, that he that runs may read them; and these soul-passions with his outward sufferings were also ordained to consecrate Christ to his Priestly Office, before he could make his soul a sacrifice. Thirdly, Therefore the formality of Christ's obedience in his death and sacrifice, must needs be the period of all satisfaction; and this is the last victorious act of the Mediators obedience, that gives the fatal blow to the Devil's headplot, and breaks it all to pieces, so that the Elect are thereby delivered from his power, as a bird from the Fowler, when the snare is broken; and all the positive ceremonial Laws touching Priest and sacrifice are but a typical exemplification of this Priest and sacrifice. Fourthly, Hence we may learn how to interpret all those God did all the external sufferings of Christ by Satan and his instruments, and Christ did all his internal soul-sufferings. Scriptures that ascribe all Christ's sufferings both inward and outward to God; God is often said to be a doer of them all; but this first Declaration of God's counsel to Adam tells us that God did all by appointing Satan to do all the external sufferings, and that God did appoint Christ (as he was the seed of the woman) to do all his internal sufferings; and thus God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings, because he was first in the order of that Covenant, where it was agreed on what Christ should suffer for man's redemption; He first expounded to the second person, that he should take man's nature of the seed of the woman, and man's infirmities, affections, and passions, that so he might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, as our merciful Highpriest, when the objects of fear, sorrow, and heaviness should present. In this sense God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings. Fifthly, God is said to do all, because he delivered him into the hands of Satan, that Satan might do his worst in his combat with him, Him being delivered (saith Peter) by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Act. 2. 23, 24. (who delivered him but Act. 2. 23, 24. God? & to whom did he deliver him, but to Satan to combat with him? according to Gods declared will, in Gen. 3. 15.) ye have taken him, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain, whom God hath raised up, losing the paint of death; namely, lo●●●ng or healing the soars and wounds that were inflicted on his 〈◊〉 by Satan and his instruments to put him to death; But no soars were inflicted on him by God's immediate wrath, no other soars were put upon him, but such as God permitted the Devil and his instruments to inflict, out of a design to provoke his patience (as he did to Job) that so he might pervert him in his obedience, and spoil his death from being a sacrifice, and so might prevent the breaking of his first headplot, which was to subdue Adam and all his posterity under the body of sin. So in Rom. 4. 25. He was delivered for our offences; namely, God Rom. 4. 25. delivered him into the hands of Satan, according to Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries with Satan, and in case Satan could disturb his patience, than he should save his headplot, but in case Christ did continue through all the combat, obedient to the positive Laws of the combat, to the death of the Cross, and at last in that perfect obedience make his soul a sacrifice, than he should redeem us from all our offences; And in this sense it was that Christ was delivered for our offences, and God raised him up again on the third day to witness our Justification, that his death was accepted of God as a Sacrifice for full satisfaction. And in this sense it is said, that God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8. 32. And thus I have showed how Christ drunk the cup of martyrdom for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice. And secondly, That the cup of satisfaction (by virtue of the free Covenant) lies both in his Combat and Sacrifice; but chief in his Sacrifice, as the finishing act, and formal price of all satisfaction. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 63. The sufferings of Christ's soul were not by way of sympathy; his soul suffered properly and immediately, Isa. 53. 10. Matth. 26. 37. The cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body; We sinned in soul properly, therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly; the greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spiritual, and such as immediately seized on his soul. Reply 13. To deny that Christ's soul suffered by way of sympathy, I suppose is to deny a truth: for the immortal soul is There is a sympathy between the soul and body in sufferings. united personally to the body by the sensitive soul, and by virtue of this conjunction there is a communion, by which means the soul may partake of the sufferings of the body, by way of sympathy. There are three things, saith Irenaeus, of which the entire See Dr. Hammons Annot. in 1 Thes. 5. 23. perfect man consisteth, Flesh, Soul, and Spirit; The Soul, saith he, is betwixt the Flesh and Spirit, and sometimes following the Spirit, is elevated by it; and sometimes consenting to the Flesh, falls into earthly concupiscences. And saith Jerom, The Soul consisting between the Flesh and And Jerom. in Gal. 5. Spirit, when it yields to the Flesh it is called flesh. By this it appears there is a communion by sympathy. But now because Christ's humane nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost after the image of God, we must say that his rational Will did cause his sensitive Will to follow it, and therefore by his strong crying, and prayers, and tears, in the Garden, he obtained that his sensitive will which naturally abhorred and feared death, was at last made like unto his rational will, altogether fearless of death, and therefore as soon as he had done praying, he said to his Disciples, Let us go meet them, and then without any fear he went to meet all his sufferings, and so by the perfection of his patience under them, he did evidence the perfection of his obedience, and in that perfection of obedience he finished all that was written of him, and then he made his death a sacrifice by the joint concurrence of both his natures; and so at last without the least fear or striving in his sensitive will, he breathed out his immortal soul. But Mr. Norton confounds Christ's sacrifice with his sufferings, and he confounds his sufferings from Satan, with his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath, in pag. 153. 213, etc. But saith Mr. Norton in the former place of p. 63. His soul suffered properly and immediately. Reply 14. First, I have showed in Chap. 12. at Sect. 4. that The sufferings of Christ's soul in Mat. 26. 38. and Isa. 53. 10. must chief be understood of Christ's vital s●ul, and not of his immortal soul. Matth. 26. 38. Isa. 53. 10. Christ's soul did not suffer any thing at all from God's immediate wrath. Secondly, I have showed, that the word Soul in these places, is not in the first place meant of Christ's immortal soul, but of his vital soul; for Nephesh in Isa. 53. 10, and Psyche in Mat. 26. 38. (for it is not as Mr. Norton citys it in v. 37.) is not meant of Christ's immortal soul, but of his sensitive soul; as I have before shown in chap. 7. Nephesh, saith Carlisle, is never used in the Old Testament for the immortal spirit, and Psyche is very seldom used in the New Testament for the immortal spirit, but (saith he) it is abundantly used for the sensitive soul; Paul said to Epaphroditus, that for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his Soul, Phil. 2. 30. And (saith Christ) The good Shepherd layeth down his soul for his sheep, Joh. 10. 11. And saith Christ, I am the good Shepherd, I lay down my soul, Joh. 10. 15. And therefore doth my father love me, Joh. 10. 15, ●7, 18 because▪ I lay down my soul and take it again, Joh. 10. 17. No man taketh it from me, I lay it down of myself, 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 poured 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 poured 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 Leu. 17. 11. and see Ains. also in Deut. 12. 23. the soul of the flesh i● in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul (this I noted in the Dialogue, pag. 94.) and this positive ceremonial type was given to the Jews to exemplify their atonement 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 poured 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 atonement, Col. 1. 20. as Aaron's 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 atonement for all our moral sins, even as the blood of Bulls, etc. was ordained to procure God's atonement 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 come. pl. par. 2. p. 581. would signify that sin is not purged by sacrifice, unless it were by death. Sixthly, Mr. Carlisle doth thus paraphrase on Leu. 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 died, 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 Christ's blood is the New Testament, whereof he is the Mediator. Ergo, The Testament-maker must needs have died. 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 lays the whole weight of all the blessings of the new Covenant on the bodily death of Christ; he makes no mention of the spiritual death of Christ's soul. And saith he in pag. 257. The offerings of Christ's body and blood is the only satisfaction for our sins. And saith he, There is no other way to salvation but by Christ's 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 Heretic. Here Tindal opposeth his judgement of Heresy 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, died but one kind of death, therefore he risen but one kind of Resurrection. Adam died both in body and soul, he died to sin, and to nature, etc. 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 Christ's immortal soul, and therefore he is point blank against Mr. Norton. Eleventhly, Cyril de Recta fide ad Reginas, l. 1. saith, If we 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 be Heresy. Thirteenthly, Fulgentius ad Transimundum, l. 3. c. 7. saith, When the flesh only died, and was raised again in Christ, the Son of God is said to have died. Ibidem c. 5. The flesh dying, not only the Deity, but the soul of Christ cannot be showed to have been dead also. Fourteen, 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, 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 only, 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 God's 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 Christ's 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 only 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 only 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 died willingly, and only in body, he meriteth for us life and righteousness. Had Mr. Norton lived in their days, durst he have condemned this Doctrine for Heresy, 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 died, but his flesh, whereof the blessed Fathers Vigilius and Fulgentius have religiously discoursed against Heretics. 20. No other death but a bodily death was typified, as I have showed from Leu. 17. 11. and this also was typified by the death of the High Priest, which was ordained by God's 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 is freed at the first Sessions of Justice; but by God's positive Ordinance in Israel, he must continue an exile till the death of the High Priest; he could not be redeemed sooner, nor by any other way from the danger of the avenger of blood, but only 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 Christ's 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 only suffer a bodily death. And saith he in p. 59 It had been of none effect if he had suffered only a bodily death, and to this effect he speaks in p. 170, 173, 174. 160, 162, etc. 22. But for the better clearing of the true nature of Christ's See Carlisle in his descent p. 144, etc. death, I will out of Christopher Carlisle describe the vital soul; Nephes (saith Carlisle) 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 Latins animam, the English soul, hath its name in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek and Latin, of breathing, because it cooleth and refresheth with respiring and breathing, page 145. 3 Nephes consisteth in blood, breath, life, vital spirit, aff●ctions and passions, etc. As for example. 1 Nephes is the blood, Leu. 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 dies 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. etc. 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 wisdom, diligence, and cogitation, as chrysostom; 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 to yield up for him, as Origen. See also Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Mark. 10. 45. Rev. 18. 14. 4 Psyche in the New Testament doth signify for the most part the same that Nephes doth in the Old. But saith Carlisle, in three places it signifies the immortal soul, as in Mat. 10. 27, 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9 And saith he, This kind of soul was that soul of Christ that was so exceeding sorrowful in Mat. 26. 38. By nature, saith Carlisle in page 155. All the parts of my body wherein there is any life, do fear death, my will is unwilling, A true description of the natural fear of death. my mind vexed, my affections moved, my heart is wounded, my members shake, my breast panteth, my legs saint, my hands tremble, and my senses are amazed. And saith he, The flesh of Christ was so troubled, that he desired, if it were possible, that he might escape death, Mat. 26. 38 Mar. 14 34. Job. 12. 27. 2 Mr. Wilmot renders the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 26. 38. Mat. 26. 38. (which we translate exceeding sorrowful) by rounded about with sorrow, for fear of his approaching ignominious death, he was rounded about in every part of his body according to the description above from Carlisle; and so David saith of his fear, The sorrows of death compassed me about, Psal. 18. 5. And by Psal. 18. 5. this expression it appears, that he was in every part of his sensitive soul, blood and flesh, in a quaking fear. Mr. Ainsworth doth render it the pangs of death, or the pains, throws, and sorrows as of a woman in childbirth, and so doth the original signify in Hos. 13. 13, Isa. 13. 8. Isa. 66. 7. And so doth the Chaldee explain it, Anguish compassed me as of a woman which sitteth in the birth, and hath no strength to bring forth, being in danger of death; Methinks these emphatical expressions of the feat of a bodily death should check such as slight them that expound the fear of Christ, of his exceeding natural fear of his bodily death. 3 When our Saviour at Supper told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, they were exceeding sorrowful, Mat 26. 21, 22. namely, they were in every part of their body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surrounded about with sorrows, and Christ doth compare their sorrows for his death to the pangs of a woman in travel, Joh. 16. 20, 21, 22. The Greek word in verse 22. and in verse 38. i● the same, and the Syriak doth translate them alike, and Tremelius doth translate the Syriack in both places with the same Latin word. So that the natural fear of an ignominious violent death doth extend itself to every part of the vital soul and body. SECT. iv But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. His sorrow was lethal and deadly, both extensively and intensively, continuing unto the last gasp: intensively killing of itself in time, had there been no other causes, resolving and melting the soul gradually, as wax is melted with the heat, Psal. 22. 14. Reply 15. In these words Mr. Norton doth make Christ's body to be subject to death by natural causes, not only externally, Christ's soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly, because they were governed by right reason. but also internally from his soul-sorrows, as if he might now lose the rectitude of his own pure humane affections. His heart indeed, according to his voluntary Covenant to undertake our nature and passions, did melt, for fear of his ignominious and painful death, in the midst of his bowels, in his preparation to encounter it in the Garden, but after a while by his strong crying and tears he did overcome that fear, and obtained a confirmation of his nature against his natural fear. But I wonder how Mr. Norton can say (as he doth often) that Christ's sorrows were lethal and deadly, and continuing to the last gasp, seeing all his affections were regular, and conformed to right reason? can regular affections admit of such a kind of sorrow, without sin? I think not, and yet I conceive that the measure of regular sorrow may be so great, that it cannot well be expressed by us, otherwise than in the Scripture phrases, which must not be stretched by the conceptions of men, beyond the context: But to affirm that the kind of his sorrow was lethal and deadly of itself, is as much as to say it was excessive and beyond the rule of right reason, which must needs be sinful; and it is worse to say that his lethal sorrows continued to the last; And therefore Mr. Nortons' kind of reasoning is most dangerous: All Christ's affections saith Martyr, were in him voluntary, they did rise in him when he pleased to show them, and they appeared not when he pleased to suppress them, but in us (saith he) they are often involuntary, and rise in us whether we will or no. But saith Mr. Norton in page 88 Christ was amazed; He began to be sore amazed, Mark 14. 33. which signifieth an universal cessation of all the saculties of the Mar. 14. 33. soul from their several functions; Physicians call it a Horripilation, we usually a Consternation, like a Clock in kiltor, yet stopped for the while from going by some hand laid upon it; That such intermission of the operations of his soul, the effect of this formidable Concussion, might be without sin, is evident to him that remembers Christ slept, sleep ordinarily implying cessation of the exercise of the intellectual faculties. Reply 16. The word translated Amazed (saith he) signifies an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from Christ was not fully amazed. their several functions: I acknowledge, that the signification of the original is of necessary use for the right expounding of the blessed Scriptures, provided the original word be not stretched to a sense beyond the context, or else there is great danger of abusing the Scripture to an erroneous sense, as I have formerly noted from the large signification of Sheol and Hades in Chap. 7. and from Nasa and Sabel, in Chap. 11. And the like I must say of this Greek word Ethambeisthai; For 1 Ethambesen is used by the Septuagint in 1 King. 14. 15. to express the sense of the Hebrew word Ragaz, to root, namely to root up Israel out of that good land. 2 The Septuagint put Thambos for a dead sleep, namely, for that dead sleep that was fallen upon Saul and his men, when their senses were so bound up that they could not awake, 1 Sam. 26. 1●. 3 The Septuagint put Thamboumenos (to express the sense of P●ohaz) for light headed, or inconstant persons, in Judges 9 4. This Hebrew word, saith Ainsworth, in Gen. 49. 4. doth signify unstable, or light, and soon moved; And this word (saith he) is always used in the evil part, Zeph. 3. 4. Jer. 23. 32. These three senses considered, who dares say (that is well advised) that this Greek word Ethambeisthai, in Mark 14. 33. ought to be stretched to the utmost sense of the word; these, and such like things, I find by conference with the Septuagint in Kirkeroes. 2 ¶ wonder why Mr. Norton saith, That Physicians call it a Horripilation; doth he think that Christ was in such a dreadful distemper of mind and body, that it made his hair to stand upright? why else doth he bring a name for it from that distemper of nature, which is called by the Physicians, a Horripilation; I never heard that Christ's humane nature was subject to diseases till now: Truly Mr. Norton seems to have too mean a conceit of the perfection of Christ's humane nature in his Agony. 3 The Text doth not say as Mr. Norton doth, That Christ was fully amazed, in a passive sense, but that he began to be amazed, in an active sense, and there is as much difference between being fully amazed, and beginning to be amazed, as there is between a sound sleep, and beginning to be asleep; when Peter walked on the Sea to go to Christ, he began to sink, and yet he did not sink, Mar. 14. 30. So though Christ began to be amazed, yet he was not fully amazed, he voluntarily began to be amazed in consideration of that unnatural and terrible evil of an ignominious and violent death on the Cross, which was now at hand to be inflicted on him by Satan, whom God had armed with authority to do it in the most ignominious and violent lingering manner that he could devise, according to Gen. 3. 15. to provoke his patience. But yet he was far from being so amazed as Mr. Norton Gen. 3. 15. doth make the word (according to its large sense) to speak: He saith that the original word signifieth an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from their several functions; what though the word in the largest extent doth signify so much? Yet I say also, that Christ was not so amazed; he was not fully overcome with fear, as men amazed are; for if all the faculties of his soul had now ceased universally from their several functions (as Mr. Norton affirmeth), then how could Christ at this very instant have behaved himself so Religiously and advisedly as he did? for now he uttered words of reason, and understanding, words of counsel and advice to his Disciples, even at the same time when he began to be amazed, telling his Disciples in what manner he began to be amazed, he said unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even to death, or even to consider the manner of my usage in the time of my death, Mar. 14. 33, 34. or thus, I am surrounded with the sorrows of death, as I have opened the Greek word a little before on Matth. 26. 38. And then also he said unto his Disciples (as one that had the use of his intellects) Tarry ye here and watch me; or as Luke expresseth it, Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation, Luke 22. 40. and then he went a little forward, and fell on the ground, and prayed, That if it were possible that hour (of his dread) might pass from him, namely, his natural dread of that Satanical usage that was at hand, vers. 34, 35. Do not all these circumstances of his wise and religious deportment prove that he was not amazed, though at first he did voluntarily begin to be amazed. Methinks a judicious Divine should look as well into the circumstances of the Text, as into the large sense of the word. Methinks a judicious Divine should know and believe, that Christ had at this time all the powers and faculties of reason, and understanding, in a far more excellent measure than any other man whatsoever that is in his best senses, and that the faculties of his soul were so perfect, that they could not cease universally from their several functions in the time of executing his office. All his passions were voluntary, and followed the rule of right reason, saith Damasen, and therefore he could not be so amazed as Mr. Nortons' definition doth charge Christ to be. 4 Let us try the sense that is given to the word by other Translators, who minded the sense of the Context more than the largest extent of the word. 1 Tremelius doth translate the Syriack word, which is the same both in. Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark. 14. 33. I say he translates the Syriack in both places alike, though the Greek words do differ, he translates Mat. 26. 37. thus, Et coepit moestus esse, & tristitia affici, and he translates Mark. 14. 33. thus, Et coepit moestus esse & affici tristitia. 2 Tindal doth translate Mar. 14. 33. thus, And he began to be abashed, and to be in an agony. 3 The Geneva thus, he began to be troubled, and to be in great heaviness. 4 The Seventy render this Greek word by several Hebrew words, that signify Frighted, Feared, Terrified, and the like, as Dan. 8. 17. At the sight of the Angel (saith he) I was afraid, and fell on my face; In this his fear he used the same gesture of reverence that Christ did in his prayers, and this gesture was suitable to one that had the use of his intellects. 2 The Seventy use this Greek word to explain the Chalde word in Dan. 7. 7. which we translate Terrible, and so terrible was the apprehension of an ignominious violent death to Christ's humane nature. 3 The Seventy use this Greek word to translate the Hebrew word, which we translate Haste; namely such a haste as ariseth from the sudden fear of death, and of such like evils, as in 2 King. 7. 15. This Hebrew word saith Ainsworth, in Deut. 16. 3. implies a trembling, and a hasty flight from the fear of danger, as in Deut. 20. 3. You approach this day unto the battle against your enemies, let not your hearts fear, and hasten not away, neither be ye terrified (namely, with the fear of death) because of th●●▪ And this haste, saith Ainsworth in Psal▪ 31. 23. is through amazement or fear, as the word commonly intendeth. And that David through the fear of death did haste away from Saul, is evident, by 1 Sam. 23. 26. But yet this is to be noted, that his fear or amazement was not in such a degree as Mr. Nortons' definition doth hold forth, for if all the faculties of his soul had now ceased universally from their several functions, than David had not been capable to contrive such a wise course for his safety, as he did on a sudden. 4 Ethambesan is used by the Seventy to interpret the Hebrew word Bagnah, in 2 Sam. 22. 5. which we translate fear, The floods 2 Sam. 22. 5. of wickedness (saith David) made me afraid. The former part of the verse runs thus, The waves of death compassed me; the Seventy for compassed have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exceeding sorrowful, compassed or surrounded about (in every part of his body) with the fears of death, Matth. 26. 38. And so David said just as Christ said, The waves of death compassed me, the floods of wickedness made me Ethambesan afraid; and so said Christ to his Disciples, I am rounded about with the fears of death, Matth. 26. 38. and the floods of wickedness make me Ethambeisthai, Mat. 26. 38. very heavy, or afraid, as the Seventy by that word do render the Hebrew word, in 2 Sam. 22. 5. 5 The Seventy use the same Greek word for fear or terror, as in Cant. 6. 4, 10. and in Cant. 8. 7. Eccles. 12. 5. Ezek. 7. 18. The thing I aim at by citing all these Translations, is, to show that Mr. Nortons' definition of the word Amazed, in Mark. 14. 33. is larger than these Translations above cited do make it to be, and larger than the context will own. I do not think therefore that Christ was ever under such a degree of amazement as Mr. Nortons' definition holds forth. 6 Neither is his comparison suitable to express that Christ was so amazed; for Mr. Norton compares the universal cessation of the exercise of all the faculties of Christ's immortal soul from their several functions in his amazement, to the cessation of the intellectual faculties in the time of sound sleeping; any man may see that this comparison is no way fit: for though the Intellects cease from exercise during the time of sound sleeping, By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ in the time of executing his Office. yet that is but to refresh nature for the better performance of its office, but by Mr. Nortons' definition of Christ's amazement he was disenabled thereby from doing the proper duties of his office, in the very time that he was to exercise his office; it was not now a time for all the faculties of his soul to cease from their proper functions, as in the time of sleeping, when there is no known danger at hand, as there was now. Doubtless to affirm that Christ was so amazed at this time, is no less than to mak●. Christ a sinner formally, as I have showed in the opening of Joh. 19 28, 30. in Chap. 4. Sect. 8. He could not be any further amazed than his perfect rational Will thought most suitable to the conditions of his Covenant, which was to be touched with a quick sense of our passions when he would, and as much as he would; The Devil indeed did labour to deprive him of his reasonable soul, as it is evident by his plotting of his ignominious and violent death, and he laboured to bring him into such amaze, as Mr. Norton speaks of, and if he could have effected it, he had won the victory; but blessed be God, this wise servant was never no otherwise amazed but as himself pleased to trouble himself, Joh. 11. 33. I confess, I find the same Doctrine in M. Weams portraiture, p. 248. He makes Christ forgetful in his Office, as M. Norton doth, by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses; and thus this corrupt tenant doth spread like leven, but saith Dr. Williams in p. 447. the passion of fear could not divert him from his desire, nor darken his understanding, nor disturb his memory, nor any way hinder him in the execution of his Office. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88 He began not merely to be amazed, but also to be very heavy, the word notes expavefaction, which was such a motion of his mind superadded to his consternation, whereby for the time he was disenabled as concerning the minding of any thing else, being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God, as the eye intrinsically fixed upon some object, taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while. Reply 17. As I said of the former word Amazed, so I say of this word very heavy, it must not be stretched beyond the context; But I have showed that he hath stretched the word Amazed beyond the context; therefore seeing he doth stretch this word very heavy beyond the word amazed, It follows, that he doth also stretch the Greek word Ademonein beyond the context. Mr. Norton stretches the word, very heavy in Mark 14. 33 beyond the context. Try it by some Translations. Tremelius doth translate the Syriack signification of this word Tristitia; And Tindal doth translate it Agony; And the Geneva, great heaviness; and Mr. Broughton, full of heaviness; And the Seventy by this Greek word do translate the Hebrew word Shamam, in Job 18. 20. which we translate, Affrighted, and the Geneva, Fear, and Mr. Broughton, Horror. All these words in these translations do well agree to that great natural fear and heaviness that Christ assumed at the sudden approach of his ignominious and painful death, and the thought of it was much in his mind, as it appears by his manifold speeches of it to his Apostles, in Matth. 16. 21. and 17. 22, 23. and 20. 18, 19, 24. and 21. 38. Joh. 12. 27. and therefore his mind was not disenabled at this time from thinking of it, and it was the main request of his prayers to get a confirmation against his natural fear of it. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88 His mind was wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God. Reply 18. These words do make it evident why he doth stretch the exposition of the two Greek words beyond the context, namely, for this very end, that he may hook in the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God upon Christ's soul; But I have said enough, I think, to confound this assertion. And other Divines give another sense of Christ's soul-sorrows in the Garden. Dr. Lightfoot in his harmony on the New Testament, p. 65. saith thus, In an Agony he sweats drops like blood; All the powers of hell being let lose against Christ, as it never was against person upon earth before or since, and that from the pitching of the field of old, Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel; so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him, as for the assaults of hell that he saw enlarged against him, that he was so full of sorrow and anguish. This testimony to the truth of God's Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue. 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides, saith thus on the word Always, in Act. 2. 25. Always (saith he) even in his forest agonies. 1 Before the sweaty Agony, his soul was troubled, yet than he called God Father, Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father, Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith, he knew God heard him always, and therefore even then he must needs have comfort. 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow, yet than he could still call God Father, Matth. 26. 37, 38, 39, 42. 4 When the betrayer was come, and the Band had seized on him, yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence, Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou (said he to Peter) that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall set before me more than twelve legions of Angels. 5 When he was upon the cross, and cried, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, Doth not the very forefront of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God? Mat. ●7. 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost, when he said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit? Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father, as we see, and knew his father heard him ever, then surely he had comfort in his Father ever; yea, if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father, we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name, when ever he did mention the name, else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together? These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christ's mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God, when he began to be amazed, and to be very heavy, as Mr. Norton doth affirm. SECT. 5. Christ's Agony, and Luk. 22. 44. Examined. MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words. If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed (saith the Dialogue) it will appear, that it did not proceed from his Father's wrath, but from his natural fear of death only; because he must be stricken with the fear of death, as much as his true humane nature could bear; he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure (as the Prophets did foretell) Add to these pains of his mind, his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death; the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat, and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat. As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death, for a time, and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers; therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer, until he had overcome it. Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given, why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin, because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded; penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably. Reply 19 I have already replied to this very answer in substance, in the first Section of this Chapter: But yet I reply further with the Dialogue, That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature, together with our true natural (but yet sinless) infirmities, Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost, our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him, and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions, he could not choose but abhor death, more than any sinful man, and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it, as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem; but at his last Supper, and in the Garden, when his death was nigh at hand, he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it, first to his Disciples, and then to God in his prayers, Matth. 26. 37, 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him, to condemn him, and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross, as a sinful malefactor. I say the consideration of this usage could not choose but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ, than the like can do to us, because of the pure constitution of his nature, as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death, Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation, as the pure nature of Christ might do and did, and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours. But saith he, Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably, he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death, which is denied: But in case such a Tenent were indeed held forth in the book of God, then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon i●, seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction, but the contrary is evident to me, namely, that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan, and upon his sacrifice, as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings, and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings. The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Saviour fell into such an Agony the night before his death, seeing it was not an easy thing to alter the property of nature, from a desire to live, to a desire to die, and that not for his own end and benefit, but for the sake of the Elect only; and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Father's will, he must observe the due time of every action, and so on, as it follows in Mr. Nortons' citation in page 64. 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes (though false) of Christ's fear, besides his natural death only, is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death. Reply 20. The Dialogue shows plainly, that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan, was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear, and so consequently of his Agony: But, Secondly, in order to overcome that fear, the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers, with cries and tears, for the overcoming of his natural fear, to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony. And thirdly, It makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him, in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combat, without any diversion by Satan's provocations, to be another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers, and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony: But mark this, the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this; and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say, That my words are a secret acknowledgement, that his fear of a natural death, was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his Natural death is the punishment of original sin, but Christ's humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death. death. 2 I cannot choose but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christ's natural death only, seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death, as I have showed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence, That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christ's death; natural death is that bodily death which was by God's positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam, as the punishment of original sin, in Gen. 3. 19 which is now natural to us; this is a true description of natural death; But Christ's humane nature, was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law, because he was free from orginal sin, and so free from the curse of that Law, for sin is not imputed, where there is no Law, Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant, wherein he was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter. Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition, he strays further and further from the true nature of Christ's death and sacrifice; first, he saith, That all the curses of the Law are heaped together, and laid upon Christ: And then in page 83. and in divers other places, he strays further and further, till he make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19 But I hope I have sufficiently showed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before, and elsewhere, That the death of Christ was not a natural death, but a death of Covenant only, or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement to the Elect, which no other man's natural death in the world is besides: And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatened to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19 But it was declared to be of another nature, and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devil's Headplot, four verses before, namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men, that his earnest prayers did increase Ains. doth make the earnest prayers of Christ to be a part of his Agony. his sweat in his Agony, by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth, upon the word Incense [beat small] in Leu. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his death, which he offered up with strong crying and tears, Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony, to teach us to strive in prayer, even to an Agony, as the word signifieth, in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrestling it out with God, Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrestled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing, Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3, 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9 14. Ex 32. 10. And saith Ains. in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ, and so Rachel wrestled or combated with Leah, Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrestling wrestled it out with Satan; He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience, in his fears and prayers; and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat, though they have the Spirit but by measure; how much more fervent than was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden, which had the Spirit above measure (as the Dialogue doth argue) it is no marvel then, that his prayers which were uttered with strong cries and tears, did increase his sweat in his Agony, until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood. Nature itself without the gracious actings of God's Spirit, may strive itself into a sweaty Agony, as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis (among Gallen Works, Attribute. Tom. 7.) saith, It sometimes happeneth, that fervent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them, and so the sweat may be bloody: Hence I reason thus; If a natural man may be thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may be bloody; then why might not Christ, that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death. in his prayers by the Spirit above measure, provoke a bloody sweat from his body? and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good, which runs; If the natural fear of death, and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat, than it might cause our Saviour's pure humane nature to sweat, much more, etc. as it follows in the Dialogue. 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes; but at sometimes again not terrible: After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden, he said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise, let us be going, namely, to meet that ignominious death, that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature, that it put me into an Agony, but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears, and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts, p. 139. now I say unto you, Arise, let us go meet it: Which till he had prayed (saith Trap) he greatly feared: And faith Dr. Hall, the fear of death is natural, and so far from being evil, that it was incident to the Son of God, who was heard in that which he feared. Observe, I pray, That Dr. Hall doth speak this of Christ's natural fear of his bodily death. And secondly, This also is worthy of due observation, that Christ must overcome his natural fear of death before he could make his vital soul a sacrifice, according to God's command, for it was Gods command, and his own Covenant also, that he should not suffer any to take away his vital soul from him. But secondly, to lay it down of himself, namely, as a sacrifice, by his own will, desire, and power; but this his humane nature could not do, until he had overcome his natural fear; and he had no better way to overcome his natural fear, than by his fervent wrestling prayers, as it is expressed in Luke 22. 44. and Heb. 5. 7. He might not in this case use the power of his Godhead to make his nature impassable, because he had covenanted to enter the Lists with his Combater Satan, in the infirmities of our humane nature, and he had no better way to get a confirmation (like Armour of proof) to his humane nature against this fear of his unnatural ignominious death, than by his earnest sweeting prayers, in which he was heard, because of his godly fear. But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. The word Agony in Luke 22. 44. signifies the sorrows of Combaters A true description of Christ's Agony. Luk. 22. 44. entering the Lists, with the sense of the utmost danger of life. A metaphor taken from the Passion of conflicting affections, in the greatest, eminentest, and most sensible perils, and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men. Reply 21. This description of the word Agony, I do acknowledge to be very true and good: But in his explication of it to Christ, he doth again spoil it, because he makes the Agony of Christ to be his conflicting with his Father's vindicative wrath, and with eternal death, whereas according to the true sense of Scripture: It was his natural fear conflicting with his ignominious torturing death, which (by his own Covenant with his Father) he was to suffer from his combater Satan; and in that respect he also covenanted, that his true humane nature which he would assume from the seed of the deceived sinful woman, should be eminently touched with the dread of his cruel and ignominious usage, according to the true purport of God's first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 87. Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony, in Luk. 22. 44. Reply. 22. I grant it was an Agony in general, but not from his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath, as Mr. Norton holds, but from his sufferings from the malice of his Combater Satan: and for the better understanding of the true nature of his agony, I will rank it into two sorts. First, Into his active agony in the Garden. Secondly, Into his passive agony, or rather into his active-passive agony, from the time of his apprehension to his death on the cross. 1 I will speak of his active agony; and that was begun in some degree before his last Supper, as it is evident by Joh. 12. 27. Joh. 12. 27. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour, namely, from the dread of this hour (but not absolutely from the hour of his sufferings, as the next words do evidence) but (saith he) for this cause came I to this hour. And though it is said by a * Sometimes the passive verb is put for the active. See Ainsw. in Deut. 31. 17. and in Pareus reconciling the Greek in Rom. 4 3. with the Hebrew in Gen. 15. 6. he saith, these two are all one, God imputed Faith, and Faith by God was imputed; so also, he poured out his soul to death, Isa. 53. 12. is in the Seventy, and in Rom. 4. 25. he was delivered to death. And saith ●all on the Covenant, p. 60. Active verbs are expounded passively among the Hebrews. See also Ains. in Psa 36 3. & 109. 13. & 40 15. & 122. 5. Gen. 20. 6. Leu. 26. 1, 11. passive verb, my soul is troubled, yet in Joh. 11. 33. he is said to trouble himself. And hence it follows by these two Scriptures compared, that his conflicting affections were active; for his sensitive will was in an absolute subjection to his rational will, in which he was the absolute Lord Commander of all his affections, they did his will at his beck; and this excellent property belongs only to the humane nature of Christ, it is his personal privilege; for our natural passions in him were above our natural power, because nature in him did never go before his will, as Damasen speaks in Reply 26. 2 The thought of his sufferings was much in his mind when he was at his last Supper; and therefore while he was at Supper he bade Judas to do what he had to do quickly, Joh. 13. 27. and when Judas was gone about his treachery, he did manifest that he had very sad apprehensions of what evils he was to suffer; for Supper being ended, and Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands, Joh. 13. 3. namely, knowing that the Father had given the management of the whole combat into the hands of his true humane nature, as it was accompanied with true humane passions, He knew it was his duty to stir up his true humane conflicting affections, in a more eminent manner than other men, at the approach of his ignominious and painful sufferings, according to the most eminent and tender constitution of his nature, above the nature of other men. 3 It is also evident, that the expressions of the two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, do relate to the same agony that Luke doth: and therefore Tindal doth translate [Ademonein] Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark. 14. 33. (which we translate very heavy) by the word Agony in both places, just as he doth [Agon] in Luk. 22. 44. But as soon as Christ had obtained a confirmation against his said natural fear, by his earnest prayers in the Garden, than his inward agony by his conflicting affections had an end; I say, after he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation, he never had any more conflicting affections in the consideration of those evils he was to suffer, as he had before he had prayed, as I have formerly noted it: But as soon as he had obtained his request by his earnest prayers, than he came to his Disciples and said to them (as a resolved Champion) Come, the hour is come, Behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise up, let us go, Mark. 14. 41, 42. namely, let us not Mar. 14. 41, 42. rise up to run away through fear, but let us go and meet those arch-Instruments of Satan, the sons of Belial, a● Ainsw. calls them, in Gen. 13. 13. or as Trap saith in Matth. 26. 46. Rise, let us be going to meet that death, which till he had prayed (saith he) he greatly feared; Or, let us go meet my Combater Satan. He speaks these words after the manner of a courageous Champion that is going to strive with his Antagonist for the mastery; and the sequel shows that from this time forwards he resisted his Combater Satan unto blood; for it was counted a shame for such as undertook to be Combaters, to yield before any blood was drawn; and indeed such combat as were undertaken for the trial of the mastery, were seldom determined without blood. And accordingly he that did overcome his Antagonist without transgressing the voluntary Laws of the Combat, was reputed by the Masters of the game to be a lawful victor, and he did thereby merit the prize; and unto this custom the Apostle doth allude in Heb. 12. 1, 2, 3. Ye Heb. 12. 1, 2, 3. have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Look therefore unto the example of that Combater, Jesus Christ, who is the Captain and conservator (as Ains. renders the word in Leu. 8. 22.) of our Faith, Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, and despised the shame, and is now seated (with honour as a conqueror) at the right hand of the Throne of God; for he endured (as the godly many times do) a great combat or fight of afflictions, Heb. 10. 32. Such voluntary Laws and Covenants, as were usually made by the Masters of the Olympic, and Roman Combats, and such voluntary Combaters as did consent to obey the said Laws and Covenants, do somewhat exemplify my meaning, when I do so often speak of the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity, and of the voluntary undertaking of the seed of the woman, to enter the Lists, and to combat with the arch-enemy of mankind, in obedience to those positive Laws and Covenants that were made between the Trinity for winning the prize of man's redemption. 4 An agony may be either inward, by conflicting affections against the fear of evil; and such was Christ's agony in the Garden, from the foresight, or foreapprehension of his ignominious usage by his cruel Combater Satan. Or secondly, An agony may be outward, in conflicting with the smarting sense of the blows of the opposite Champion. Dr. Hammon in 2 Tim. 4. 7. 8. saith, That these two verses are 2 ●im. 4. 7, 8. wholly Agonistical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) is any of the four famous Games Olympic, etc. And (of that) as it signifies the suffering afflictions, See 1 Thes. 2. 6. and there (saith he) the 1 Thes. 2. 2. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strife or contention, may be taken in an active or in a passive sense, i. e. either for labour or sufferance, both in a high degree. In the first sense (saith he) Christ doth command us to enter in at the straight gate. And in the latter sense (saith he) see Phil. 1. 30. Col 1. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 10. Heb. 12. 1, 2. Phil. 1. 30. Col. 1. 29. where striving is bearing or suffering afflictions, and so in 1 Tim. 4. 10. there the K. M. reads we combat, i. e. suffer persecutions, and there is the combat of sufferings in Heb. 10, 32. and Phil. 4. 3. the women that Heb. 10. 32. Phil. 4. 3. combated or contended, i. e. that suffered persecutions with me. See more of the Agonistical Games in his Annotations on 1 Cor. 9 24, 25, 26, 27. And see Goodwin in his Roman Antiquities, l. 2. 1 Cor. 9 24, 25, 26, 27. p. 100, 101, 103, 104. of the several sorts of combating, and he concludes with a reference to Lipsius, who treateth largely of the combat of Fencing. And into this double kind of agony did Darius cast himself in Dan. 6. 14. He laboured till the going down of the Sun to deliver Daniel. Dan. 6. 14. The Seventy translate this word laboured, by Agonizomenos; that is to say, he laboured as those that strive or contend for the mastery, with daniel's opposite Combaters, to deliver Daniel from the Lion's Den; He so contended with daniel's adversaries, as he did agonize himself to deliver him, till the going down of the Sun; and this agony of his was not only extended to his outward labouring with daniel's adversaries to get a Release of the Decree, but it was also an inward agony with his own conflicting affections of sorrow and fear, for the cruel death of his dearly beloved Daniel: And yet in vers. 16. he had some hope that God would miraculously deliver Daniel, and when the King sealed the stone with his signet, that the Decree should not be changed, he had some hope of his escape, for he knew that the Lions did not presently seize upon his body, and therefore after he was returned to his Palace, he remained fasting, and suffered no instruments of music to be brought before him, and his sleep went from him, vers. 18. all this doth evidence the greatness of his inward agony with his own conflicting thoughts and affections, of fear and sorrow, for the great danger of daniel's life. These, and such like instances, do somewhat direct us how to understand the true ground and cause of Christ's agony; both of his internal agony in his sensitive soul in the Garden, and of his external agony by his combat of sufferings from Satan and his instruments, from his apprehension to his death on the Cross; and how he was to conquer them by his constant patience, and by his perseverance in all obedience to the positive Laws of the combat, before he could make his soul an acceptable sacrifice. 5 I will yet more largely open Christ's agony, by opening the plot of the Trinity for man's redemption, as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. First, In proclaiming enmity between the seed Gen. 3. 25. of the Serpent, and the seed of the Woman. And secondly, In declaring the victory to go on Christ's side by his obedience to the Laws of the Combat, even when the Devil by his malicious stratagems should pierce him in the footsoals. 1 God told the Devil in the Serpent, in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of the deceived woman; and that he should have his full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor, and (at last) to pierce him in the footsoals, and that he should have his full liberty to enter the Lists, and try masteries with his humane nature, as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities, to the end that he might try the best of skill, if by any means he could bring this seed of the woman into any disobedience to the Laws of the Combat, as he had done with Adam in his Innocency. But Mr. Norton in page 19 and in page 218. doth spoil the true sense of this word Seed of the woman (called He, and Him) in Gen. 3. 15. by interpreting it in a collective sense of Christ, and his members; whereas it should be interpreted only of the individual person of Christ, as he is the second Adam, and public head of his Elect Church; as Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant, page 312. hath rightly expounded the word Seed, in Gal. 3. 16. and his reasons there alleged may serve to prove the like sense of the word Seed, in Gen. 3. 15. Moreover God told the Devil, that he might look to himself as well as he could, that this seed of the deceived woman, should by his perfect obedience to the Laws of the Combat, conquer him in all his designs, and at last make his soul a most perfect obedient sacrifice; by which perfection of his obedience, both in his Combat and Sacrifice, he should break in pieces his first grand Headplot; for his first grand Headplot was to entice Adam to eat the forbidden fruit (contrary to God's voluntary positive prohibition) and thereby to inwrap him, and all his natural posterity into the same spiritual death of original sin: But yet for all this, God told the Devil, that he would raise up a seed from this deceived sinful woman, that should conquer him by his most perfect and exact obedience to another voluntary positive Law, that should be more hard and difficult to be performed than adam's was by infinite degrees, and that was first to enter the Lists with Satan and his instruments, and not to be disturbed in his patience, but to observe the laws of the Combat in all obedience, and at last (when the Devil had done his worst) he should then make his vital soul a sacrifice in breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power; and all this is comprehended in this sentence, He shall break thy head: and by this speech, God did fully forewarn the Devil, that he might use his best skill without any restraint, to do what he could to disturb the patience of this seed of the woman, either by his sinful imputations, or by his ignominious usage, or by his cruel tortures, and so might do his utmost to interrupt his obedience, that so his death might not be a sacrifice, and that so by this means he might save his Headplot from being broken, and accordingly the Devil did often stir up his Arch-instruments to disturb his patience, but especially when he entered into Judas to fetch a band of armed men with swords and staves to apprehend him as a notorious Malefactor, and stirred up the Scribes to accuse him as a most sinful Malefactor, worse than the murderer Barabas, and he stirred up Herod, and his Soldiers, to mock him, and Pilate to condemn him to the most shameful cursed death of the Cross; and all this evil usage is included in this sentence, Thou (Satan) shalt pierce him in the footsoals. And in this Combat this is chief to be marked, That the Devil did use all the foulest play that he could devise to disturb the patience of this Seed of the woman that was compassed about with our true natural affections and passions, and with a tender sense of every evil, for the Devil knew that if he could by all his foul play, but once have disturbed his patience, that then he had perverted him in the course of his obedience, and then he knew that he should have spoilt his death from being a sacrifice, and then he knew that he should have preserved his first grand Headplot from being broken; and then the Devil would have triumphed over Christ upon the Cross, and over all mankind, as he did when he first brought Adam to disobey Gods positive prohibition in eating the forbidden fruit. 2 God was pleased further to declare, That it was the plot of the Trinity, that the second person should take unto him the seed of the deceived sinful woman; and that he should enter the Lists with his enemy Satan, in that nature, as it was accompanied with true natural passions, and not in the power of his divine nature, and therefore it was of necessity that he must manifest the truth of his humane nature by his true natural affections and passions, in fearing, and sorrowing, and abhorring his vild ignominious usage by his Combater Satan; and if it be marked, Christ doth as much complain of his shameful usage, as of his painful usage; and that he saith in Psal. 69. 20. Reproach hath broken my heart; and yet still, that, notwithstanding all Satan's vild usage, he should continue obedient to the very last, even to the most shameful death of the Cross, and that he should then make his vital soul a sacrifice of Redemption and Reconciliation for all the Elect. And thus as by the demerit of Adam's disobedience to a mere positive Law, The Many (even the Elect as well as the Reprobate) were made sinners, so by the merit of the obedience of the second Adam to God's mere positive Law in his combat with Satan, and in his death and sacrifice, The Many are made righteous, Rom. 5. 18, 19 that is to say, Rom 5. 18, 19 They are justified from the condemning power of sin by God's Reconciliation for the sake of Christ's obedience in his combat of sufferings, and in his death and sacrifice. And indeed how else could his humane nature be better proved and exemplified, than by his fear and heaviness at the nigh approach of his ignominious and must cruel unnatural death's? and how else could his obedience be better proved and exemplified to be most perfect, than by his most perfect patience under such an ignominious and cruel usage, and therefore by his constancy in his patience and obedience through the whole combat with Satan, he got the victory over Satan, and won the prize that was set before him, by the Masters of the combat, Phil. 2. 8, 9 and this God declared first in Gen. 3. 15. He shall break thy headplot. In these words God declared that the Phil. 2. 8, 9 Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 2. 10. All Christ's greatest sufferings were by God's appointment to be from his combater Satan, as in Reply 12. and 6. seed of the woman should be a victorious combater, and conqueror of his enemy Satan, by his patience and obedience through the whole combat; And that Christ's sufferings are set out by his combater Satan, it is the Scripture phrase and language by which Christ's sufferings and his victory is described and deciphered, as it is evident by Gen. 3. 15. and so in like sort by Heb. 2. 10. he is there called the Captain of our salvation, and it is there said, that it became God to consecrate him, or to make him perfect (as he is our Captain in the combat) through his victorious sufferings from his combater Satan; and see also Exod. 32. 29. And Christ is called our Captain, because all good Christians are called his Soldiers, 2 Tim. 2. 3, 4. And therefore in Col. 2. 15. Christ is said to have spoiled Principalities and Col 2. 15. powers, and (as a conqueror) to make a show of them openly, and to triumph over them in it, namely, in his patiented and obedient death on the cross; and he is also compared to a victorious shepherd that ventures his life to combat with the fierce Lion and the ravenous Bear, to redeem the poor Lamb from his prey (as David did) in Joh. 13. 11. and in Isa. 53. 12. He is Isa 53. 12. joh. 10. 11. said to divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to the death, namely, because he ventured his life with his combater Satan, and because at last when he had fulfilled all his sufferings, he poured out his vital soul to the death, in the nature of a sacrifice, when he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And therefore saith God, He shall divide the spoil with the strong adversary Satan, for though Satan at the first got the victory over Adam, and thereby enwrapped all mankind, under his power, as his spoil; yet now at the last Christ by his constant patience and obedience, notwithstanding all Satan's provocations, hath got the victory again over Satan, and by that means he pacified God's wrath for the Elect, and rescued them from being Satan's spoil, to be his spoil. And thus you see how Christ hath divided the spoil, as David did when he conquered the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 30. and this dividing of the spoil is always done with joy for the victory, as in Judg. 5. 30. Luk. 11. 22. These and such like Scriptures do fully declare unto us wherein the true nature of Christ's agony doth consist, namely, in his combat with his ignominious answer from his malicious combater Satan, both his inward agony in the Garden, when he was surrounded with great fear, and with great heaviness, it was in relation to his outward agony by his combat of sufferings from Satan on the cross; and also the true nature of his conquest is set out by that victorious weapon of righteousness, his constant and exact patience and obedience, and no Scripture doth mention his sufferings to be from God's Judgement seat, in the way of legal proceed from Gods immediate wrath, though the Devil took that course to make him a legal sinner before Pilat's judgement seat. 3 The Devil having had this open warning by God's proclamation of an utter enmity, namely, that the seed of the woman should by his patience and obedience under all the difficulties of the combat, break his headplot; he took the warning, and therefore he neglected no time, but took the very first opportunity to disturb the patience, and to spoil the obedience of the seed of the woman, even as soon as ever he was intrinsically installed into the Mediators Office (which was done at his baptism) and then Christ also was led by the Spirit of God (that anointed him, and installed him with gifts for his Office) into the wilderness on purpose to try Masteries with the Devil; and there the Devil continued to tempt him by all the sleights he could devise for forty days together, and because he could not prevail in those forty days, therefore when the said forty days were ended, he grew to be more desperate (than formerly) in his temptations, and according to the grant of his power (which was unlimited) over the body of Christ, he took it up, and carried it aloft to the Air, and set it upon the top of the Pinnacle of the Temple; and truly, it is no marvel that the Divine nature would suffer his Humane nature to be carried about by the Devil, seeing he suffered Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his baptism, when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cross. his humane nature to be crucified by him. But still the Devil lost his labour, because Christ's obedience was unconquerable, for by his patience and obedience he resisted the Devil in all his temptations; and after the Devil had spent his skill in these three notable temptations, he is said to leave him for a season, Luk. 4. 14. but it was but for a short season, for in vers. 16. when our Saviour came to Nazaret where he had been brought up, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read; and at last he said thus to them, No Prophet is accepted in his own Country, vers. 24. And then all in the Synagogue when they heard these things were filled with wrath (for the Devil did now provoke their corrupt natures thereto) and they risen up and thrust him out of the City, and led him to the brow of the hill, that they might cast him down headlong, vers. 28, 29. and ever after continually the Devil did nothing else but raise up most vild slanderous accusations against him, and often moved the Pharisees to take him and put him to death. 4 The Devil did yet more eagerly enter the lists with Christ, at his last Supper, and so on to the Garden; for at his last supper he said thus to his Disciples, Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the Prince of this world cometh, Joh. 14. 30. For just now Joh. 14. 30. he hath taken away Judas from our society to fetch a Band of armed men from the High-Priests to apprehend me as a sinful malefactor; and therefore I foretell you that the Prince of this world cometh now to assault me more fiercely than ever heretofore, So that hereafter I cannot talk much with you, as now I do. Of which more hereafter. But because Mr. Norton doth make this Agony of Christ to be his conflicting passions with his Father's vindicative wrath; therefore it is needful ere we go any further to examine such Scriptures as are brought for the proof of it. 1. The first Scripture I will begin with, is in Mat. 26. 31. This Scripture hath been objected to me by some of note, to prove Matth. 26▪ 31. that God himself did smite Christ the Shepherd of the sheep, by his immediate vindicative wrath. The context lies thus, When Christ was at Supper with his Disciples, his true humane nature was much exercised with the thought of his ignominious and cruel usage, which Satan was ready to bring upon him; as it appears by his speeches to his Disciples, All ye (said he) shall be offended because of me this night: For it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered, Matth. 26. 31. This [I] hath been expounded to me by some of note, to be God, and so it is; but withal they expound it to be Gods smiting of Christ's soul with his immediate wrath. But this I deny, for these words must be expounded from Zach. 13. 7. and then the case will be altered, Zach. 13. 7. for the words in Zachary runs thus, Smite thou the shepherd, there the word [Thou,] is put for the word [I] in Matthew, and this difference is observed by Mr. Ainsworth in his preface to Genesis; so that in Zachary God saith to Satan, smite thou the Shepherd; Smite him as a sinful malefactor and spare not, do thy worst to disturb his patience, etc. God speaks thus to Satan in Zachary, just as he did in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt pierce the seed of the woman in the footsoals as a wicked malefactor. Weigh the whole Text in Zachary, which runs thus. Awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd; That is to say, rouse up thyself O Satan, and bring a band of men armed with swords and staves against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, as we see he did in Mat. 26. 47. Smite thou the shepherd, for I have given thee full liberty without any restraint, to use thy best skill to make him a sinful malefactor, and to smite him as a sinful malefactor, that thou mayst disturb his patience if thou canst, and so mayst make him a transgressor, as thou didst Adam. Or it may be read at it is in Matthew, I will smite the shepherd; For I God have given Satan full liberty to smite him, that I may see the proof of his patience and obedience. And in this form of speech God is said to afflict Job, and therefore Job said, The Lord hath taken away my cattle, and my children, Job 1. In these words you see that Job ascribes all the evils that fell upon him, to God, because God permitted Satan to do what he did, and therefore saith Job, in Chap. 19 21. The hand of God hath touched me; In these words he called the Devil God's hand, because God gave the Devil leave to afflict him (so as he did) to try his patience, and we see that Jobs patience in his first encounter with Satan was not disturbed. And in this sense the word [I] must be understood in Matthew; I will smite the shepherd; that is to say, I God will give Satan leave to smite the shepherd. This is the true sense of Matthew, and therefore this is no proof that God smote Christ's soul from his immediate vindicative wrath. The second Scripture to be examined is Isa. 53. 10. It pleased Isa. 53. 20. the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, when he shall set out, or give his soul to be a Trespass-Offering, or as the Seventy read it, a sin, For this phrase set, see Ains. on Gen. 21. 13. & 27. 37. and in Psa. 8. 2. and Gen. 9 12. & 17. 5. This Scripture being rightly interpreted, doth not mean that God was pleased to bruise Christ actively, and so to put him to grief by his immediate wrath; But it means that it pleased the Lord passively to put, that is to permit and suffer Satan to bruise him, and to put him to grief, and so speaks our larger Annotation on these words, He put him to grief, or (as some saith the Annotation) he suffered him to be put to pain or torment, because this form (saith the Annotation) hath oft in it a notion of permission, as in Psal. 37. 33. Psal. 119. 10, 116. and Isa. 63. 17. and see more for this form in Reply 22. and in Ains. in Psa. 39 9 and in Psa. 16. 10. In this sense, I say, It pleased the Lord to bruise Christ, and to put him to grief, and just so it pleased the Lord to put an utter enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived sinful woman, in Gen. 3. 15. there the Lord appointed the Devil by Gen. 3. 15. his permissive Commission to combat for the victory with the seed of the woman; and in case the Devil could prevail to disturb his patience, than the Victory was to go on his side, but in case the seed of the woman did persevere in his patience and obedience through all the Devils ignominious trials, and at last in that perfect obedience did make his vital soul a Sacrifice by breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power, than the victory was to go on his side, and then he was to have the prize, namely, the Redemption of all the Elect. And in this sense also is Isa. 53. 5. to be understood, He was Isa. 53. ●▪ wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: God may be said to do this (though not from his immediate wrath) because he permitted Satan to do all this, as I have expounded these words formerly. And in this sense it is said in Psal. 69. 27. They persecuted him whom thou hast smitten: God is here said to smite Christ, but yet not from his immediate wrath, but by Satan and his Instruments, God permitted Satan to do his worst to Christ, to manifest the perfection of his obedience for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice; but the Devil's end was to disturb his patience, and so to pervert him in his obedience, that so his death might not be a sacrifice. And thus it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief, namely, by Satan and his Instruments, and not by God's immediate wrath; And this I believe is the plain genuine sense of Isaiah. And because I judge this interpretation to be of necessary consequence, I will once more repeat it with some enlargement. It pleased the Lord, according to the counsel of his own will (which he first declared to us in Gen. 3. 15.) to permit Satan to enter the Lists with the seed of the deceived woman, to deceive him if he could; and to that end he gave him his full liberty to deceive him by fraud, or to provoke him by force to some sinful disturbance or other: And thus it pleased the Lord to permit Satan to bruise him, and to put him to grief, by an ignominious and long lingering violent death, to disturb his patience and obedience if he could, even at the same time, when his soul shall set, or give itself to be a Trespass-offering, that so he might spoil his death from being a sacrifice if he could, and thereby might save his first grand Headplot from being broken: And it pleased the Lord also according to the counsel of his own will, to Covenant to, and with the Mediator, that in case he held constant in his obedience, through all Satan's malicious stratagems, and at last in that perfect obedience did give his soul to be a Trespass-offering, than his obedience in his said sufferings should be for his perfect consecration, and then his death should be accepted as an acceptable sacrifice of Reconciliation for all the Elect, and then God's Covenant with him was that he should see his seed, and prolong his days, and that the pleasure of the Lord for man's actual Regeneration, and Reconciliation, should prosper in his hands. But Mr. Norton doth often torment this heavenly sense of Isaiah, with a contrary, for he makes Christ to combat with God's immediate wrath, and to suffer as a legal sinner, and as our legal Surety from the judicial vindicative wrath of God, even from his judicial vindicative Judgement-seat, as in page 55, 63, 85, 122, 143, 165, 192, 213, 39, etc. The third Scripture to be examined is Rom. 8. 32. God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. Hence Mr. Norton infers in page 122. That Christ was tormented without any forgiveness; God (saith he) spared him nothing of the due debt, Rom. 8. 32. Rom 8. 32. To this interpretation I Reply; That Gods not sparing his Son, but delivering him up for us all, must not be understood of Gods delivering him up to his own immediate wrath, as Mr. Nortons' sense doth carry it: But of Gods delivering him up to his Combater Satan, that so Satan might have his full liberty to do his worst unto him to provoke his patience, and so to pervert him in his obedience by his ignominious and cruel usage, that so he might spoil his death from being a sacrifice if he could, and that so he might hinder him from breaking his first grand Headplot: In this sense God spared not his Son, but gave him up for us all, and in this sense, God gave Satan liberty to use Pilate as his instrument to make Christ bear our sins in his body on the Tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. And therefore Christ said unto Pilate, Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above, Joh. 19 11. For God gave Satan leave to do his worst against Christ, by all the wicked instruments he thought fit to employ; And Mr. Nortons' sense, that God delivered up Christ to be tormented by his own immediate wrath is confounded also by Peter's exposition in Act. 2. 23, 24. The fourth Scripture to be examined is Act. 2. 23, 24. and Act. 4. 27, 28. Him being delivered (saith Peter) by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Ye (the Devil's Arch-instruments) have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain, whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death. Hence it is questioned what pains of death they were that God did lose? The Answer is, Not pains of the second death, as some do most unadvisedly expound it. But those pains of death, Which Ye by wicked hands have made by crucifying and slaying his body on the Tree; These are the pains of death that were made by the wicked hands of his Crucifiers, and these pains of death were they that God loosed and healed at his Resurrection. And these wicked hands are thus described in Isa. 53. 8, 9 Isa. 53. 8, 9 He was taken away by distress (or restraint) and by judgement, and who shall declare his Generation? Namely, Who shall be able to declare the extreme wickedness of that Satanical generation, by whose wicked hands he was taken away as a wicked Malefactor, and restrained of his wont liberty, and brought as a Malefactor before the judgement-seat of the Highpriest, and of Pilate, and of Herod, and again before the judgement-seat of Pilate, where he was sentenced to be crucified. First, Some, I conceive, understand this Interrogation of his Godhead, Who shall declare the Generation of his Godhead? Secondly, Others understand it of the Generation of his elect number. Thirdly, But I believe it must be understood of his wicked Satanical Generation, for John Baptist did call them, A generation of Vipers, Mat. 3. And Christ did call them, A wicked and adulterous Generation, in Mat. 12. 34, 39 And so Dr. De Boate doth expound Isa. 53. 8. And so Dr. Hammon doth expound Act. 8. 33. And History doth report, That at this time the Priests and Scribes were exceedingly addicted to converse familiarly with the Devil. And then it follows in verse 8. For he was cut off out of the land of the living, which is thus expounded in Act. 8. 33. His life was taken from the earth. And just according to this phrase Daniel saith, That after sixty two weeks, the Messiah shall be cut off; that is to say, He shall be executed by the Devil's Instruments for a wicked Malefactor, Dan. 9 26. But not for himself, saith Daniel, that is to say, Not for his own sinful nature, nor for his sinful life: And to these two Scriptures do the words of Christ allude, when he said to his Disciples at his last Supper, The Prince of this world cometh (with a band of armed soldiers to apprehend me for a Malefactor) but he hath nothing in me, Joh. 14. 30. no original Joh. 14. 30. corruption, nor no actual transgression against the laws of the Combat. Why then was he taken by wicked hands? God doth answer by Isa. 53. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken, wounded and bruised on the Cross: God would have his obedience declared to be perfected by this means, before he would accept his death as a sacrifice of Satisfaction and Reconciliation for the transgression of his people; and than it follows in verse 9 That he made his grave with the wicked; This Mark expounds thus, He was numbered with the wicked, Mar. 15. 28. and with the rich in his death, for he was buried in rich joseph's Sepulchre. These Scriptures thus expounded, and many such like which might be alleged, must have the same sense, namely, according to Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. which will eminently show, how God is said to do all the afflictions of Christ, namely, (not from his immediate wrath, but) because according to the voluntary Covenant and Council of the blessed Trinity, he proclaimed a combat of enmity between Satan, the arch-enemy of mankind, and the seed of the deceived woman. And secondly, Because he gave the Devil a commission to do his worst to disturb his patience, and so to pervert his obedience. 3 God may be said to do all the soul-sufferings of Christ, because he appointed him to take on him the seed of the woman, and man's true natural affections and passions, and so to be inwardly touched with the sense of Satan's ignominious and unnatural usage, and to manifest it to his Disciples in a high degree, according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution of his nature above ours, and his obedience thereto caused his inward agony in the Garden. 4 It is further evident that God would have Christ's soul to be affected with a deep degree of the dread of his ignominious and unnatural usage by Satan (even to an eminent Agony Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature, but in his humane nature, as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities, dreading an ignominious death. ) because he appointed him to enter the Lists, and to combat with Satan in his true humane nature, as it was accompanied with his true natural infirmities of fear, etc. and not as it was sometimes accompanied with the power of his Godhead. For by Gods declared will, Christ might not take his utmost advantage against Satan by arming his humane nature with the assistance of twelve Legions of Angel; neither might he put forth his omnipotent and absolute power to destroy or annihilate Satan, neither might he shut up Satan in his everlasting prison to hinder him from his encounter, for if Christ had put forth such a power as this against Satan, the odds had been too great, and such odds given to Christ could not stand with the wisdom of the supreme Covenanters; and therefore in Gen. 3. 15. God appointed Christ to take on him the seed of the deceived sinful woman, and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan; by the well managing and ordering of which nature better than our first parents had done in their innocency, he should prevail against the stratagems of the old Serpent, that had the power of death over our first parents; and doubtless the Devil made full account to get the like power over the humane nature of Christ, as he had done over Adam's pure nature, and to that end, he did not cease to employ his Instruments to tempt him, and often times he heaped upon him many grievous accusations and sinful imputations, and at last he proceeded so far as to apprehend him, condemn him, and crucify him as a sinful malefactor; But still the deceiver was deceived, for indeed, Christ was such a wise servant; and such a faithful Priest that he circumvented Satan and all his Instruments by his righteousness in managing the combat according to the just laws of the combat, for the Devil could not by all his stratagems prevail to make him a Transgressor, and therefore he could not prevail to put him to death formally, by forcing his vital soul out of his body by all his torments, and this is evident, because God's Justice had not ordained any thing else but sin only to be the sting of death; and therefore unless Satan could have so far prevailed as to make him a guilty sinner, he could not sting him to death formally; but himself was the only Priest in the formality of his death, and therefore when he was in strength of nature he did but say, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, and then at that instant he gave up the Ghost, and that last act being done according to Covenant, gave the formality, 1. To his Obedience. 2. To his Death. 3. To his Sacrifice. And 4. To the full price of satisfaction to God's Justice for man's redemption. And thus the seed of the woman conquered Satan, broke his first grand Headplot by his weapon of righteousness, and won the prize. 5 This is no new upstart doctrine, that Christ conquered Satan by righteousness, in observing the Laws of the combat, and by entering the Lists with the infirmities of his humane nature, which was most eminently showed both in his internal and external agony, but this doctrine hath been taught by the ancient Divines, for. 1 Christ was made man (saith Damasen) that so that which Ortho. Fidei l. 3. c. 18. was conquered might conquer; God was not unable (saith he) by his mighty force and power to take man from the Tyrant, but then that would have been a cause of complaint to the Tyrant that had conquered man, if he had been forced by (the power of) God; therefore God who pitied and loved us, willing to make man that was fallen the conqueror of Satan, became man, restoring the like by the like. 2 Gregory saith, When Satan took Christ's body to In mora●iam l. 3. c. 11. crucify it, he lost Christ's Elect from the right of his power. Ibidem, From God's speech to Satan concerning Job, He is in thy hand, but save his life; he doth thus declare God's commission to Satan touching Christ; Take thou power against his body, and lose the right of thy dominion over his Elect. 3 (Saith Ireneus) Christ coupled and united man to God, for Iren. l. 3. c. 20. if man had not vanquished the enemy of man, the enemy had not been justly vanquished. 4 Leo saith, If the Godhead only should have opposed it De passi. Dom. Ser. 5. self for sinners, not so much reason a● power should have conquered the Devil. Ibidem, The son of God therefore admitted wicked hands to be laid upon him, and what the rage of persecutors offered, he with patiented power suffered. This (saith he) was the great mystery of godliness, that Christ was even loaden with injuries, which if he should have repelled with open power, he should have only exercised his divine strength, but not regarded our cause that were men; for in all things which the madness of the people and Priests did reproachfully unto him, our sins were wiped away, and our offences purged (as Isa. 53. 5.) The Devil himself (saith he) did not understand that his cruelty against Christ should overthrow his Kingdom. He should not (saith he) have lost the right of his fraud, if he could but have abstained from the Lords blood, but greedy with malice to hurt, whiles he rusheth on Christ, himself falleth; whilst he taketh, he is taken, and pursuing him that was mortal, he lighted on the Saviour of the world. And saith he, in Ser. 10. Jesus Christ being lifted on the tree returned death on the Author of death (Heb. 2 14.) and strangled all the principalities and powers that were against him, by objecting his flesh that was passable, and giving place in himself to the presumption of our ancient enemy, who raging against man's nature that was subject unto him, durst there exact his debt, where he could find no a These letters a, b, c, d, do show that the ancient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ, as Mr. Norton holds. sign of sin; therefore the general and mortal hand-writing by which we were sold, was torn, and the contract of our captivity came into the power of the redeemer. And (saith he) in Serm. 12. To destroy the Kingdom of the Devil, he rather used the righteousness of Reason, than the power of his Might, for whilst the Devil raged on him, whom he held by no b These letters a, b, c, d, do show that the ancient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ, as Mr. Norton holds. Law of sin, he lost the right of his wicked dominion. Hence I infer, If the Devil did afflict him by no Law of sin, than he was not a sinner by God's legal imputation. 5. Theodoret saith, Because thou who receivedst power against De Providen. Ser. 10. sinners hast touched my body that am c These letters a, b, c, d, do show that the ancient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ, as Mr. Norton holds. guilty of no sin, forfeit thy power, and cease thy Tyranny: I will free mine from death, not using simply the power of a Lord, but a righteous power: I have paid the debt of mankind; owing no death, I have suffered death; and not subject to death, and did admit death, no way d These letters a, b, c, d, do show that the ancient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ, as Mr. Norton holds. guilty, I was reckoned with the guilty; and being free from debt, I was numbered among the debtors; sustaining therefore an unjust death, I dissolve the death that is deserved; and imprisoned wrongfully, I free them from prison that were justly detained. Ibidem (saith he) Let no man think that herein we dally, for by the sacred Gospels and Doctrines of the Apostles, we are taught that these things are so. And saith Le●, de passi. Dom. Ser. 17. He that came to destroy death, and the author of death, how should he have saved sinners if he would have resisted his pursuers? 6 Austin speaks very much to this sense, That Christ overcame the Devil by justice (namely, by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15.) and not by force (namely, not by the power of his Godhead) any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense; His discourse is long, but Mr. Wotton hath abbreviated his method, De Reconciliatione peccatoris, part. 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he citys Bernard also to the same sense, and thither I refer the Reader. 7 Saith Dr. Willet, on Dan. 9 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us, because by it he overcame death, and subdued the Devil, none of all which Adam's righteousness could do: And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him. And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree, That Christ's greatest sufferings were from Satan's malice by God's permission; and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines, that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth, That Christ was a guilty sinner by God's legal imputation, nor that he was pressed under the wrath of God: but on the contrary, they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him, and that the Devil held him by no law of sin, and that he was no way guilty of sin. 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah, do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan; as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader. 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. Here two Questions may be propounded, and answered. 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death? 2 How came his power to be destroyed? Adam's first sin caused by the Devil, was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin, and that was the meritorious cause of God's justice in▪ appointing a bodily death and judge●●●●▪ To the first Question, the Geneva Note doth answer, because he was the author of sin, none but the Devil was the author of Adam's first sin, in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbidden fruit, which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin. And then secondly, The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of God's justice in denouncing a bodily death, in Gen. 3. 19 bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adam's first sin, as most Expositors do carry it (though I think they mis● it) for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adam's first sin, than the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced, that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants, if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adam's first sin. be convinced, that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants; for they may say, as most Expositors say, That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adam's first sin; and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents. But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to be the immediate effect of original sin, in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin, because it was the immediate punishment of Adam's first sin, whereof the Devil was the author, and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death, to all the fallen sons of Adam, but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not believe their Redemption by the promised Seed; for when God did first denounce a bodily death, he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement, as the Apostle shows in Heb. 9 27. and Heb. 9 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. to this sense of death doth Austin speak, There is a first death, and a second death: Of the first death, saith he, there are two parts. One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator. The other, whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by God's justice. And the second death (saith he) is the everlasting torment of body and soul: And thus the Devil got the power of death. The second Question is this, How came this power of the Devil to be destroyed? The Answer is, by the second Person, in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fullness of time, and by entering the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature, as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities, of fear, sorrow, etc. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satan's conflicts he completed his victory, and at last he made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice, which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction, for the redemption of all the Elect: And thus he destroyed him that had the power of death. The Devil's plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor, as he had made Adam, but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman, continued obedient to the death, through all Satan's malicious stratagems, even to the death of the Cross, and at last made his soul a sacrifice, therefore he got the victory, and won the prize, even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death, he hath destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ (in his Agony) was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicted with eternal death. Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God, is no way suitable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter. I have showed in Chap. 9 that the voluntary cause is never overruled by a supreme compulsary power: When grapes, or any other thing is pressed, it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it: Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters, and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters; Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency, but not God by his immediate wrath. And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Father's wrath. guilt of our sins (saith he) there fell upon him sorrow, trouble of mind, astonishment, and heaviness to death, Matth. 26. 38. when he was to enter the Lists, and to fight the great combat hand to hand with his angry Father. Ibidem, in page 320. he calls the said combat, Handy gripes with his Father; and his suffering on the Cross, he calls, The main battle, fought three whole hours (with his Father) all which time tugging in the fearful dark with him, that had the power of darkness to hid from the eyes of the world the fire of his Father's wrath, which in that hot skirmish, burnt up every part of him. And saith Calvin, We see that Christ was thrown down so far that by enforcement of distress, he was compelled to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Just. l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. And thus instead of entering the Lists with the Devil, according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith, He entered the Lists to fight the great combat hand to hand with his angry Father; and instead of the Devil's wrath, they put in God's wrath; and instead of the Devil's force, they put in God's force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath: And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled, most unadvisedly used by Calvin, and others. And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviour's Agony, be suitable to the language of the holy Scriptures, whether he was pressed and compelled by God's immediate wrath: And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil, and his instruments, according to Gods declared Decree, in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it be not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ, as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father, and to be pressed under his wrath, and to conflict with eternal death, as Mr. Nortons' phrases are, was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose, that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father? Perhaps you will answer, he was able, because his humane nature subsisted in his divine: I grant that it always subsisted in the divine, because the divine nature was never angry with the humane; but yet it doth not follow, that it was always assisted and protected by the divine, for than it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan, and his instruments: I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent, that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane, that the infirmities of the humane might appear; and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power: But let it be as the objection would have it, namely, that his humane nature being assisted by his divine, was able to endure to be pressed under his Father's wrath. Then it will follow from thence, that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine? Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick? But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not only with the humane nature, but with the person of the Mediator, because of sin imputed to him. Reply 23. First, I have showed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures. Secondly, Was it ever heard that a Mediator, between two at variance, did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation? Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken, and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation? These are paradoxes in Divinity, by which the clear Truth is made obscure. Such Tenants are like the smoke of the bottomless pit, that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures. The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods, rather than drops, of blood, streaming down his blessed body, a thing which neither was seen nor heard, before or since, the true reason thereof (saith he) is, Christ died as a sinner imputatively, pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood, then doubtless it was a miraculous swe●t, and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it. wrath of God. Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body, then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat, and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it; but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes, and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cries, and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause. But I perceive that Mr. Nortou himself is put in a wavering mind (in p. 66.) whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause; for when he had expounded his Query, he concludes thus, We leave it to them that have leisure and skill to inquire. And (saith he) Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a mere natural death, notwithstanding (saith he) our Doctrine is not built only or chief upon this Argument. Hence, 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons' answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer; and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation, and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfy a doubting conscience. 2 This speech of his, our Doctrine is not built only or chief upon this Argument, is a plain acknowledgement that the Agony of Christ, and his sweat like blood, is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death, and yet in p. 70, 39▪ 68, 89, etc. he lays great weight upon his Agony, as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively, pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicting with eternal death. 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this, that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell, but by God's extraordinary dispensation, as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature (namely, of the sensitive soul) that is between man's mortal body, and his immortal soul in a moment? Seeing he holds, that his death was caused by the wrath of God; For he saith, That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God, because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed. For this is a clear Truth, That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell, until it be made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection. 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment, whether the Greek word for this bloody sweat be no● stretched beyond the Context, as well as he hath done the word Amazed, in Mark. 14. 33. as I have showed before. 6 Hence it may be considered what a learned Divine saith, There are some (saith he) that take Christ's bloody sweat in that grievous agony to be a symptom of infernal pains. But (saith he) from what grounds, either in Philosophy or Divinity, I know no●. If the pains of Hell, or hellish pains (so some distinguish) be procured by the fire of Hell, (be that material or immaterial) bloody sweat (saith he) can be no probable effect, of the one or of the other fire; nor is such sweat any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or demonstrative sign of pains more grievous than may be inflicted or suffered by patience merely natural. For (saith he) however in cold Countries bloody sweats be as rare in men's bodies as showers of blood in the Air. Yet as Curans. a good Philosopher hath long ago observed, To sweat blood is not usual to Italians, yet usual only, (as I take it) to men of that Climate in some particular diseases. The most remarkable instance which I have read of bloody sweat in a man, not oppressed with any disease, is a Captain, an Italian (if I mistake not) who being surprised by the subtlety of his Enemy, whom he had trusted too far upon a Tristee of Parley; and thereby enforced either to yield up the Fort, which he had stoutly maintained, or otherwise, to be presently hanged. The consideration of this perplexity, wherewith (through his own folly) he had entangled himself, did make such a deep impression into his generous spirits, that it squeezed blood out of his veins. (And as this sudden fear squeezed blood out of the veins of this Captain, so in Reply 20. I have cited the speech of a Physician that saith thus, It sometimes happeneth that fervent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body, that blood passeth by them, and so the sweat may be bloody.) And saith the former Author, our Saviour (no doubt) as man had a more deep touch of all the malicious disgraces, and cruel indignities which his enemies could put upon him, than this Captain had. The measure of his bodily sufferings, and personal wrongs were in number far more, and for quality more grievous than ever were intended to this Captain, or any other mortal man by their enemies; And though the death of the cross was in itself an ignominious and cruel death, yet in our Saviors particular that was most true, * Of the ignominious manner of his death, and what I have said on 1 Sam. 31. 4. There Saul did so loathe to be put to a disgraceful death by the mockings of the Philistims, that he prayed his Armor-hearer, rather to kill him, as I have noted it in Gal 3. 13. at Reply 6. And Samson, rather than to live to be an ignominious mocking-stock to the Philistims, desired to die, Judg. 16. 25, 26. Mortis modus morte pejor; The manner of his Apprehension, of his double Arraign meant, and Conviction, of his usage before he was brought to the place of Execution, and all the time whiles the malice of the Jew and Gentile was wrecked upon him, was more grievous than the death of the Cross itself, without these grievous concommitants, could have been. 7 I find that many Divines, though they hold that Christ suffered in soul from the immediate wrath of God upon the cross; yet they do not hold that his Agony in the Garden was from the sense of the immediate wrath of God upon his soul. But his sorrow and dread there, they make to be in relation of what he was afterwards to suffer upon the cross; and the fear of that (say they) was the cause of his bloody sweat. First, Dr. Williams saith, That the clear sight and consideration Dr. Williams in his seven golden Candlesticks, p 143, 144. Bradshaw on justific. p. 75. of that cup which he was to drink, was the cause of his Agony. Secondly, Saith Mr. Bradshaw, Whiles he hung upon the accursed tree, he had such a deep sense of the incomparable wrath of God; that the very apprehension thereof (before it seized upon him) made him sweat drops of blood. Thirdly, Saith George Downham, The fear of God's wrath In his Coven. of Grace, p. 68 when he was in his Agony, caused him to sweat great drops of blood, Luk. ●2. 44. And (saith he) the sense thereof on the cross made him cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Fourthly, Saith Mr. Wall, In his Agony in the Garden, he Wall in his none but Christ. p. 27. sweat drops not of water but of blood, etc. and all this in expectation of what he should suffer, when no hand touched him, but his own thoughts of what he was to suffer. I could cite divers others that speak to this purpose, But these are sufficient to evidence thus much, that many of the learned do hold, that though Christ suffered the wrath of God upon the cross, yet they deny he suffered the wrath of God in his Agony in the Garden, and therefore his bloody sweat is no certain reason to prove that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God in the Garden, as Mr. Norton holds, though after he hath affirmed it, he doth again leave it doubtful, which doth not well agree to the property of a Judicious Consuter. Fifthly, Seeing such eminent Divines as I have above cited, do hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God (not in the Garden, but) on the cross only, once for all; It shows that Mr. Norton hath not so many Divines on his side as he intimates ever and anon, by us, and our, and we say, as in p. 44, etc. 8 It is also very considerable that there are sundry learned Divines that deny that our Saviour sweat blood, and therefore they do much more deny that he sweat clods of blood (as Mr. Norton affirms he did) for the original word, they say, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood. And first, So speaks the Greek Text plainly. And secondly, So do our Translators interpret it; And thirdly, Saith Dr. Hammon in his paraphrase on Luk. 22. 44. He sweat (as men in agonies are wont) great glutenous drops, like those of blood when it drops on the ground; and saith he in his Annotation, That Christ sweat drops of blood is not affirmed in this place, but only that he sweat drops of sweat of a strange thickness or viscousness, and consequently as big as when blood is wont to fall upon the ground; So saith Justin Martyr, Theophylact, and Entymius. (And truly I may well add this, That seeing his sweat was in the open air, and in a cold night, it might well thicken as it ran down his body, and be glutenous before it fell to the ground.) And saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as, or as it were, doth note some resemblance, as (saith he) the Spirit descended as it were a Dove, Matth. 3. 16. somewhat resembling a Dove; So the Manna was like Coriander-seed in shape and quantity, but not in colour. 9 Christopher Carlisle in his Descent, page 46. saith, Was not Christ extremely afflicted, when he for fear of death, sweat drops, in quantity, as thick as drops of blood. 10 So John Frith the Martyr saith thus to Sir Thomas Moor, See his Ans. to Sir. Tho. Moor, p. 34. as it is printed with tindal's works. Christ did not only weep, but feared so sore, that he sweat like drops of blood running down upon the earth, which was more than to weep. Now (saith he) If I should ask you, why Christ feared and sweat so fore? what would you answer me? That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory; Forsooth he that should so answer, would be laughed to scorn of all the world, as he were well worthy: Wherefore was it then? Verily even for the fear of death, as it plainly appeareth after; for he prayed unto his Father, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, Mat. 26. 38, 39 So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh. And (saith he) the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah, that he wept for fear of Death, and not of Purgatory. In these words you see that Friths judgement was, That Christ's Agony was for fear, not of a spiritual, but of a corporal death. 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus, His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground, and speaking of Christ's last Supper, he saith thus, The fear of death was the same hour upon him, neither slept he any more after, but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples, into the place, where he was taken, to abide his Persecutors, where also he sweat water and blood of very agony, conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand. 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying, In his Agony he sweat drops like blood. These five last Authors you see are not for sweeting of perfect blood, though Tindal say, he sweat water and blood; yet that is far from pure blood, and farther from clods of blood. 2 This is farther remarkable, that Tindal and Frith, do make the fear of his bodily death, in the words cited, to be the cause of his Agony. 3 This is still farther remarkable, that neither of these two have a word in all their writings, that he suffered any other death, but a bodily death; though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresy. 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by me, cannot examine the Quotations, their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox, than the sense of the Dialogue. Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons' unjust prejudice of the Dialogue, for the Author of the Dialogue citys their sense to his sense, which is so clear and manifest, that it stairs him in the face; and yet their words (cited in the sense of the Dialogue) he saith is orthodox, and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresy; Is not this plain partiality, to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox, and to condemn it in another for heresy. And saith he, Friths other writings call to have it so; namely, to mean it according to Mr. Norton. Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith, and to the Reader, to make Frith of his judgement; the words of Frith, which I have truly cited him, do cry shame upon him for saying so; and in all his writings, he makes the death of Christ to be no other but a true bodily death. 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith, namely, to be sorrowful unto death, and for the exceeding grief thereof to pour forth a bloody sweat. 13 Damasen saith thus, Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions, for he assumed the whole man, and all that pertained to man, except sin; Natural and blameless passions are those, which are not in our power; and whatsoever entered into man's life through the condemnation of sin (namely of Adam's sin) as hunger, thirst, weakness, labour, weeping, corruption, shunning of death, fear, agony; whence sweat and drops of blood: These things (saith he) are in all men by nature, Christ therefore took all these unto him, that he might sanctify them all. Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature, and above nature: According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when he permitted his flesh to endure that which was proper to it: Above nature, because nature in him did never go before his will; for there was nothing forced in him, but all things voluntary; when he would he hungered, when he would he thirsted, when he would he feared, and when he would he died. From this speech of Damasen touching Christ's Passion and Agony in the Garden, we see he held, 1 That shunning of Death, Fear, Agony, whence sweat and drops of blood, which are in all men by nature; and therefore, saith he, Christ took all these unto him, that he might sanctify them all. 2 That these were in Christ, not only according to nature, but above nature, because nature in him did never go before his will. 3 That nothing in him was forced, therefore he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God. Conclusion. When the fullness of time was come, that the seed of the woman, Christ Jesus, was to be bruised and pierced in the footsoals, with an ignominious torturing death by Satan, and his instruments, according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane, but must leave the humane nature to its self, to manage this conflict; in which conflict, he was to manifest his true humane infirmities; and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seize upon him; he began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and then he said unto Peter, James, and John, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death, or it is surrounded with sorrow, that is to say, Every part of my body, wherein I have my vital soul, is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death, by such a malignant enemy, as is armed with power and authority from G●d to execute it on me; and I do here manifest my true humane nature, and the infirmities of it, that you may record it to all posterity, that I have took part with them, that for fear of death, are all their life time subject to bondage, that they may be assured I am a merciful Highpriest, and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree, for than it might be doubted, whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am, but in the highest degree, according to the most excellent temper, and tender constitution of my nature above the nature of other men. But yet it is of necessity, that I must overcome this natural fear, because I have covenanted to lay down my life by my own will, desire, and power, Joh. 10. 17, 18. and therefore my rational soul must betake itself to prayer, therefore tarry ye here and watch, and pray, that ye be not overcome by the many temptations that now are at hand to try you; and then he went a little from them, and fell on the ground and prayed, That if it were possible, that hour might pass from him, namely, that the dread of his ignominious usage might pass from him; for so much the hour imports in Mark. 14. 35, 41. And his Agony was so great, that it caused him to sweat, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he had three times offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from the natural dread of his ignominious torturing death, he was heard and delivered from the natural fear of his vital soul, because of his godly fear in his rational soul, and then he was confirmed against his natural fear; and so he never feared more after this, and then as soon as he had fulfilled all his sufferings, he did in perfection of patience and obedience, make his vital soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation for man's Redemption. This Relation of Christ's Combat, and of his Agony in his Combat is every way agreeable to the scope of the blessed Scriptures, and therefore Mr. norton's Tenent must needs be dangerous, because he makes this Combat to be between Christ's humane nature, and his divine, being pressed under the sense of God's wrath, and conflicting with eternal death, and so forcing out clods of blood, as wine is forced from the grapes, by Gods pressing wrath; such expressions of pressing do utterly destroy the voluntariness of Christ's obedience in his suffering, and do make him to be no less than an inherent sinner in his Death and Sacrifice. CHAP. XVII. SECT. I. The Examination of Psal. 22. 1. with Matth. 27. 46. THe Dialogue citys Mr. Broughton, saying, My God, my God, showeth, That Christ was not forsaken of God, but that God was still his hope. 2 Saith he, The word Forsaken, is not in the Text; But why dost thou leave me to the griefs following (from the malice of the Jews) as they are expressed in the body of the Psalms. 3 Saith he, None ever propounded one matter, and made his amplification of another: But Psal. 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men, and not from God's anger; And therefore the Proposition in the first verse, is not a complaint to God, that he had forsaken his soul in anger for our sins, etc. Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 78. The Hebrew (as also the Syriack used by our Saviour in Mat. 27. 46.) and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint, signify to leave another helpless in their necessity and extremity, which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture, but also in that this very word, per Antiphrasin (it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations) signifies, to help up that which is down, and to fortify, Neh. 3. 8. & 4. 2. And such leaving we usually express by forsaking, and accordingly it is read by Latin Expositors, promiscuously, who do in effect say with Mr. Ainsworth, there is no material difference between leaving and forsaking, so as the meaning be kept sound. Reply 1. He saith that this Hebrew word Azab to leave, is one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations; The Hebrew word Azab hath two contrary significations as Mr. Norton affirmeth to amuse his Reader, about Gods forsaking Christ I wish he do not cast a mist in this speech as well before his own eyes as before his Readers. Though I am no Linguist, yet I love and approve such, as do labour to use the Originals to the advantage of the truth, and to the profit of the Reader. But as far as I can learn, this Hebrew word Azab is none of those that have two contrary significations (if there be any such, when things are searched to the bottom) but yet I freely grant that this word, as well as many others, have several differing significations (but not contrary) namely, a proper signification and a metaphorical. But saith Mr. Norton, It hath two contrary significations. First, Because it signifies to help up that which is down, as well as to leave or forsake. Reply 2. I grant that Azab by a necessary consequence from the context doth signify helping up that which is down, and in this he alludes to Exod. 23. 5. and there the words run thus, Exod. 23. 5. If thou see the Ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shall surely help with him. I grant that our Translation doth twice in this Text render Azab, to help, but yet in the Margin they translate it to leave, in both places, according to the propriety of the Hebrew, thus, & wouldst cease to leave thy business for him, thou shalt surely leave it to join with him; & hence it follows by a necessary consequence, that if he must leave his business to join with his hater, whose Ass lies under his burden, it must be to help him; and in this respect the Translators may well render Azab to help; And to the like sense doth Ainsworth translate it in his Annotations, When thou shalt see thy haters Ass lying under his burden, than thou shalt cease from forsaking him; and hence it follows, that he that ceaseth from forsaking his hater when his Ass lies under his burden, must needs help him: And therefore in the next clause Mr. Ainsworth reads it thus, Thou shalt leaving leave (thine own business to be) with him; thou shalt not leave him, by passing away on the other side of the way, as the Priest and the Levite did from the wounded man, but thou shalt leave thy hatred to help him, as the Samaritan did, Luk. 10. 33, 34. And according to this sense the Seventy render it thus, Thou shalt not pass by the same (that is, thou shalt not leave his Ass under his burden) but shalt raise up the same, together with him. And the Chalde speaks thus, Thou shalt leave what is in thine heart against him; and hence it follows, That he that leaves what is in his heart against his hater, when his Ass lies under his burden, must needs help him. Therefore from hence I conclude, that the Translating of Azab to help, is more from the sense of the Context, than from the proper sense of the word, and therefore though it be translated to help up, yet that doth not prove it to have a contrary sense to leave, it only proves that Azab may be taken in a various sense according to the circumstances of the Context, where it is used. The like he affirms of a contrary sense in other words, p. 48. and he gives three instances, To which I answer, that they are not contrary, though different in respect of the metaphorical sense, and so the word Tzedec Righteousness, is often put for a counterfeit righteousness, which in proper speaking is unrighteousness in God's sight. And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness, in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa. 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness. Secondly, Saith Mr. Norton, Azab, signifies to Fortify, Neh. 3. 8. & 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortify is contrary to leaving and forsaking, in case it can have no other sense in the place cited; But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation (which is according to the propriety of the Hebrew word Azab) of leaving off to fortify when they came to the broad wall, because that was done in former times, and was still standing undemolished as the rest was, and the like sense they give of Neh. 4. 2. and the like sense must be given of Azab, in Isa. 49. 25. and therefore as yet there is no contrary signification of the word Azab, as Mr. Norton doth make his Reader believe, to bewilder his understanding, in the manner of Gods leaving or forsaking Christ on the Cross. But for the better finding out the truth, I will first give some instances of the various sense of Azab, and then I will examine what sense it hath in Psa. 22. 1. 1 It is used in a metaphorical sense for a Mart or Fair, Ezek. 27. 12, 14, 16, 19, 22. And it is also used for Wares of Merchandise, in Ez. 27. 27, 33. And the reason is plain, because in Fairs and Markets there is an usual and continual leaving of one thing for another by way of contract, as of money for Wares, and of Wares for money, & of one sort of Ware for another. So in like sort the Hebrew word Gnereb (which in propriety doth signify the connexion or conjoining of two or more things together) is used by Ezekiel by a Metonymia for Fairs or Markets, and for Wares of Merchandise, Ezek. 27. 13, 17, etc. Because of the connexion and conjoining of sundry sorts of Wares to sell, and because of the sundry conjunctions between men, by contracts about Wares, as I have showed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time. 2 As Azab is put for leaving one thing for another in Markets, so it is put for any other kind of leaving, either by way of agreement or disagreement; As for example, when it is agreed that two shall strive for the mastery, there all friends must stand aside, and leave their friend alone to try the mastery, as David was left of his friends, when he alone undertook to try masteries with Goliath. 3 Leaving is put for leaving of a man's own business, to help another in his necessity, as in Ezek. 23. 5. afore expounded. 4 Leaving is put for forsaking, or leaving another that is helpless in their necessity. Sometimes it is to leave in anger, as 2 Chron. 24. 25. And sometimes not in anger but by necessity, 1 Sam. 30. 13. And sometimes willingly, and so Mary left Martha to serve, whiles she attended to Christ's Doctrine, and in that respect Martha complained to Christ, saying, Dost thou not care that my Sister hath left me alone to serve, Luk. 10. 40. There Sabactani is in the Syriack just as it is in Psa. 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. 5 Leaving in Hebrew, is often used in mercy, favour and kindness, as in Ruth 2. 16. Jer. 49. 11. and so it is used in the Chalde, in Dan. 4. 15, 26. the word Leave there is in favour, as ver. 26, showeth. 6 Azab is applied to Gods leaving or forsaking of notorious sinners in anger, 2 Chron. 24. 18, 20, 24. Deut. 31. 17. & 32. 36. 1 King. 14. 10 & 21. 21. 2 King. 14. 26. Yea, sometimes God's hatred is joined to his leaving or forsaking, as in Isa. 60. 15. But remember this, that God never forsakes any in wrath, but such as do first forsake him by provoking sins. 7 Azab is used for leaving of a man's first love to the Truth, in Prov. 3. 3. Let not Mercy and Truth leave thee, or forsake thee. 8 God left Hezekiah only to try his heart, 2 Chron. 32. 31. 9 Azab is put for a leaving of those that a man loves well, to cleave to that which a man loves better, as to leave a Father for a Wife, Gen. 2. 24. Ruth. 1. 16. 10▪ A man leaves a thing because he is forced, Gen. 39 12, 13, 15, 18. 11 A man often leaves that he loves through haste, Josh. 8. 17. 1 Sam. 30. 13. 12 He leaves a thing through fear, 1 King. 31. 7. 1 Chron. 10. 7. 13 Azab is to leave, or cease, or rest from complaining, and so the Divine nature did often rest, or cease, or leave the Humane nature to his own natural principles in his sufferings and combatings with Satan and his Instruments. These several senses of Azab, and many such like, do show the various sense of the word leaving. 14 And this is worth the noting, That though Azab doth often signify such a leaving as is a forsaking, yet it doth not always signify forsaking as it doth leaving. For Azab is applied to sundry kinds of leaving, which cannot with any fitness be called a forsaking, as in Gen. 39 6. Potiphar left all he had in trust in joseph's hand. So in Gen. 50. 8. Their little ones, and their flocks and their herds they left in the land of Goshen. And so in Exod. 9 21. 2 Sam. 15. 16. and so in Ruth. 2. 16, Boaz commanded his Reapers to let fall some of their handfuls, and leave them in kindness, on purpose for Ruth to glean them. So Job 39 14. The Ostrich leaveth her eggs in the warm dust to hatch her young ones. So in Jer. 49. 11. Mal. 4. 1. 2 Chron. 28. 14. Ezra 6. 7. And many other places might be cited to prove that Azab cannot so fitly be translated to forsake, as to leave. I grant notwithstanding, that the word leave is so large, that many times it doth most fitly agree to the word forsake in the largest use of it. But ere long I shall show the particular sense of the word left or forsaken, Psa. 22. 1. But saith Mr. Norton in the page aforesaid. The meaning of the word leave or forsake, was kept sound with Mr. Ainsworth, but with you is not. Reply 4. I grant that Mr. Ainsworth did hold, that God forsook or left Christ's soul in wrath, but yet for all that, he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth; namely, that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell. I received some Letters from him not many years before his death, about the point of Christ's sufferings; And his Letters tell me that he held this as a principle, that Christ suffered no other afflictions for kind, but what the Elect do suffer in this life, though in a far greater measure (now seeing he held this as a Principle, he could not hold that Christ suffered God's penal and vindictive wrath, except he had also held that the Elect do suffer Gods penal and vindicative wrath in this life; But seeing all the punishments of the godly are called but chastisements, even so the greatest Isa. 53. 5. All Christ's greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisements, i● Isa. 53. 5. of Christ's sufferings on the cross, are also comprised under the word chastisement, Isa. 53. 5.) But yet I grant also that Mr. Ainsworth held, that as the Elect do often suffer God's wrath, so did Christ; and in this last point I differed from him, for though I hold that God's chastisements on his own people are from his fatherly wrath, yet I also believe that Christ's chastisements were not from God's wrath for correction to amendment as ours are. But from the conditions of the voluntary Burges saith well that Jobs afflictions were to him as a storm or tempest is to a skilful Pilot; or what a valiant Adversary is to a stout Champion, on justif. p. 28. and such was the nature of all Christ's chastisements. Covenant, Christ was to suffer chastisements from the rage of Satan, for the trial of the perfection of his patience and obedience; and because he continued constant in his obedience through all his sufferings from Satan's rage, therefore his sufferings have the condition of merit. Besides this, in all Mr. ainsworth's five Books on Moses, and the Psalms, which were published before this intercourse of Letters, I find nothing in any of them that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell. And therefore Mr. Ainsworth was not sound in the sense of these words, Why hast thou forsaken me, according to Mr. norton's Tenent, though he was far more sound than Mr. Norton is. 2 I can instance the like in several other eminent Divines that held satisfaction by suffering God's wrath in some degree, and yet were far from holding as Mr. Norton doth, that Christ suffered the very essential Torments of Hell both of loss and sense, as Mr. Weams in his portraiture p. 208. saith thus, ●●cause some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ, as the Torments of Hell, the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person, and to this purpose I could cite Ball on the Covenant, p. 200. and others also. 3 Our larger Annotations on Psa. 22. 1. speak thus, Christ, as man did suffer partly in his body, and partly in his soul (but more in his soul than in his body) more than can either be expressed by man, or be imagined. I do not see how any reasonable man can question that reads the story of his passion, from his bloody sweat unto the end, and considers Christ's own expressions recorded to us, that we might know how much he hath suffered for us. (But saith the Annotation) I will not say that there was a necessity that he should suffer so much, just so much, both in Body and Soul to make his sufferings available to our Redemption, both of our bodies and of our souls. This I dare not say, because I have no warrant for it in the Scriptures, and bare humane Ratiocination in these things is mere folly and madness. This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. norton's Tenent, for Mr. Norton holds no sufferings to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to the Law, namely, Christ's suffering of the Essential punishment of Hell torments both of loss and sense, both in body and soul. But saith this Annotation, I will not say there was a necessity that he should suffer so much, just so much, both in body and soul, to make his sufferings available to our Redemption, both of our bodies and soul; This (saith the Annotation) I dare not say, because I have no warrant for it in the Scripture. But Mr. Norton heaps up abundance of Scriptures to prove Our larger Annotation on Ps. 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons' way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination, which is but mere folly and madness that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell, both in body and soul, and therefore according to this Annotation they must needs be wrested from their right sense; for this Annotation accounts all that can be said for it, to be but bare humane ratiocination, and calls it mere folly and madness. But Mr. Norton on the contrary doth boldly damn this denial in this Annotation to be Heresy, such an antipathy there is between his Tenent and this Annotation. But the Lord hath his time when truth shall prevail against Mr. Nortons' most dangerous Scripture-less Tenent. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Psal. 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by man instrumentally, and by God's anger as the efficient cause. Reply 5. Mr. Norton affirms that God's anger was the efficient cause of all the griefs that Christ suffered from his Cradle to his Cross. But the Dialogue goes in another strain, the Dialogue makes all Christ's sufferings to be founded efficiently in the eternal Council, and in the voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity for man's Redemption, and therefore he was to perform all as a voluntary Covenanters (and was not to be overruled by God's judicial imputation of our sins to him, and by his supreme compulsory power in pressing him under the sense of his immediate wrath;) namely, that Christ should take on him the seed of the deceived woman, and in that nature should enter the Lists and Combat with Satan, as I have often expounded Gods declared will, in Gen. 3. 15. for it pleased God to put an utter enmity between the Devil and the seed of the woman, even from the foundation of the world, Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries, and Isay foretell that Christ should by his obedience to the death, get the victory, and divide the spoil, Isa. 53. 12. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Anger, in Scripture, is sometimes taken for the hatred of God unto a person; sometimes, for the execution of vindicative Justice; in this latter sense God was angry with Christ, not in the former. Reply 6. In Chapter 5. I have showed from Dr. Ames, that the essential torments of Hell are inflicted from God's hatred; And thence it follows, That if Christ did suffer the essential torments of Hell, than he suffered them from God's hatred. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Christ doth complain in Psal. 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sin. Reply 7. I shall not need to make any other Reply to this than his own words, in p. 42. To complain against God, saith he, is a sin and showeth grudging. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. God's forsaking is either total and final, so God forsakes the Reprobate; or partial and temporal, as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the Promise; so God forsook Christ, and of this forsaking Christ, complaineth in this place. Reply 8. The punishment of loss is variously and contrariously delivered by Mr. Norton, as I have showed at large in Chap. 4. and therefore I refer the Reader thither for a full answer to this place. But I come now to open the word Forsaken, in Psal. ●2. 1. And I will open the sense by answering these three Questions. I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross? II. Why did God forsake Christ on the Cross? III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross? Question I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross? Reply 9 I Have in part showed how in the Dialogue, but I will add somewhat to confirm it. 1 Therefore I say, that God forsook Christ on the Cross, by God forsook Christ on the cross by not protecting him against his crucifiers. not protecting him from the hands of Satan and his Instruments. Or thus, God put enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived woman; and it was agreed between the Trinity from eternity, that Christ in his humane nature should try masteries with the power & policy of Satan and his Instruments, & therefore it was agreed also, that God should leave the humane nature of Christ alone to manage this Combat; and it was agreed also to permit the Devil to use all his power and policy, to do his worst to disturb the patience of the humane nature, and so to pervert him in his obedience, that so his first Headplot might not be broken. I say in this Combat the Godhead was to leave the Humane nature to its own principles, and to permit the Devil to use his utmost power and policy to encounter with his Humane nature, and therefore he brought into the Garden a Band of Soldiers, armed with Swords and Staves, to apprehend him, and to bind him like a Felon, and to carry him as a prisoner, first before the Priest, and then before Pilate, and there to lay many criminal accusations against him, and at last to crucify him for a notorious malefactor with all manner of ignominy, and torturing pains; and in all these injurious abuses God did not protect him, nor put out any power to deliver him; And thus God forsook Christ on the Cross, and left him helpless, as a Combater aught to, be in the trial of Masteries. 2 This exposition of the word Forsaken, must needs be the right interpretation, because it agrees to the Context in Psal. 22. whence it is taken, and therefore I will make it appear by comparing it with the Context. 1 The next adjoining sentence to the word Forsaken, is this, Why art thou so far from helping me? namely, against my envious Adversaries; his condition was such that it needed some help from God to suppress them; but it had not been so fit to call upon God to help him, to suppress his own vindicative wrath (if any such thing had been) a● Mr. Norton affirms. 2 The next sentence doth also explain the former; Why art thou so far from the words of my roaring? for though God had heard his earnest prayers in the Garden, and had fully delivered his humane nature from the dread of the Cup, yet not from the Cup itself of his sufferings; and it is also clear by verse 11. that God heard him in regard of inward support (though not in regard of outwrd deliverance). Be not far from me, because trouble is near, and there is none to help me; that is, be not far from supporting my inward man, for there is none to help me in regard of my outward man: I know by thy revealed Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that thou hast given Satan power over my outward man, to put me to death as a Malefactor on the Cross. 3 He prays again in verse 19 Be not far from me, O Lord, my strength, hasten to help me, deliver my soul from the sword, my desolate soul from the power of the Dog. In these words Christ doth acknowledge God to be his strength, even now in this time of his greatest passions: And hence it follows, that when he cried, My God, my God, why hast th●● forsaken me, that he felt God to be his strength in the inward man (at least) though at the same time God did forsake him by leaving his outward man into the hands of Satan and his instruments, or else his mouth, and his heart did not go together, when he did acknowledge God to be his strength, and when he cried out, My God, my God: This appellation shows that God was his strength in the inward man, though God left his outward man to the power of Satan, and his Instruments, to crucify him as a Malefactor; and therefore his next Petition is, Hasten to help me, that so my body may also be delivered from the power of these Dogs, by my Resurrection on the third day, according to his faith, in Psal. 16. 10. 4 And lastly, This is remarkable, that Christ did not utter these words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, until he had fulfilled all his appointed sufferings from the Devils instruments, as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and as they are largely expressed in this Psalm, and therefore the word Forsaken, doth relate to God's outward leaving him in the whole course of his sufferings, from his apprehension to his death. 2 This interpretation of the manner how God did forsake Christ is strengthened by the concurrence of sundry eminent orthodox Divines. 1 P. Martyr on Phi. 2. enumerating the calamities that Christ suffered, gins thus; The first calamity (saith he) is to lose estimation, the Thief was preferred above Christ, Barabas was dismissed, and Christ was counted among the wicked. 2 Saith he, Another calamity was touching bodily deliverance, he was destitute of God's help; My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me: And he citys Austin to his sense; But I pray take notice, that he applies this speech, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, to his bodily deliverance: How far wide is he from Mr. Nortons' essential torments on Christ's soul; but for want of due observation, Mr. Norton thinks, that all the Orthodox run on his side, but upon better search, he may see the contrary. 2 Bucer in Mat. 27. 46. saith, Christ here complained that he was forsaken (or left) of his Father into the hands of the wicked, to endure all their rage. 3 Bullinger in Mat. 27. saith, To forsake, in Christ upon the Cross, is to permit; so that this was the meaning of Christ; Why dost thou suffer me to be thus afflicted? Why dost thou permit these things to mine enemies? When wilt thou deliver me? 4 Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony on the New Testament, page 72. saith thus, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, not forsaken him as to the feeling of any spiritual desertion; but why left to such hands, and to such cruel usage. Ibidem, In his Commentary on Act. 2. 17. he saith, Why should not these words, My God, my God, be translated, Why hast thou left me, and given ●e up to such hands, shame, and tortures? rather then to intricate the sense with a surmise of Christ's spiritual desertion. 5 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his Manuscript on Christ's Descent, on these words in Act. 2. 25. He is at my right hand, saith thus, God is at Christ's right hand for support and comfort, as in this Text, and in Psal. 109. ult. This by the way, O●e would think (saith he) evinceth, That the complaint of our Lord in Psal. 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. imports not any total dereliction, or desertion without all comfort, but a leaving of the holy One of God, Mark. 1. 14. to the extremities of wicked men, mentioned in that Psalm, and felt upon the Cross. Ibidem, Upon the word Always, he saith thus, The ground of his gladness was Always; for as much as he saw God on his right hand Always, therefore his gladness thereon grounded, was Always: And hence it follows (saith he) that his gladness was never from him, no not when he said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, or rather left me, namely, to the torments after mentioned in the Psalm: And indeed (saith he) My God, my God, how could it be spoken especially doubled, and that of him who felt what he spoke, without the apprehension of that sound joy and gladness that is couched under, and grounded on those words? And yet (saith he) I go not about to lessen his pains, I tremble to do so, yea I tremble to think so; but as Job saith, Chap. 13. 7, 8, 9 We must not speak untruly for God, nor talk otherwise than the thing is for him. 6 Mr. Robert Smith (whom the Dialogue through mistake calls Mr. Henry Smith) a Reverend Divine, though silenced through the iniquity of the times; he drew up that Argument, that is prefixed to the Table of the Dialogue, against Gods forsaking of Christ's soul in wrath. 7 Mr. Wotton hath expressed to myself his dislike of their exposition that holds that God forsook Christ's soul in wrath, and Mr. Smith abovesaid, concurred with his judgement. 8 Jerom in Mat. 27. saith, Marvel not at Christ's complaint of being forsaken, when thou seest the scandal of his Cross. 9 Bernard de verbis, Es. Ser. 5. saith, This was the dereliction that Christ meant in his complaint, there was a kind of forsaking Christ (on the Cross) when there was, in so great necessity, no demonstrance of his power, no manifestation of his Majesty (or divine power.) 10 Lyra in Matth. 27. saith, Christ was forsaken of God his Father, because he was left in the hands of those that slew him. 11 I have cited Christopher Carlisle to this sense, and others, in the Dialogue, page 60. I could also cite more to this Exposition: But the judicious Reader will think it needless, and therefore I forbear. SECT. II. Question II. Why did God forsake Christ on the Cross? THis indeed is the most proper Question to be answered, because Christ propounded this Query with a loud voice, in the audience of a multitude both of friends and enemies: As if Christ had said, I would have the cause why God hath left me into the hands of Satan's instruments, to be sought out, and understood of all men. God forsook Christ on the Cross, because his humane nature might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, in all the afflictions that were written of him. Reply 10. The cause in general was from the voluntary Contract and Covenant between the Trinity, that so the humane nature of Christ might fulfil God's Decree; for if God had not forsaken Christ, or left him in the hands of the Devil and his instruments; how could Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, have done whatsoever Gods hand and counsel had determined before to be done? Act. 4. 27, 28. 2 How could Pilate else, have had power given him from above to condemn him, if God had not forsaken him, or left him to his power? Joh. 19 10, 11. For who is he that saith, That any thing falleth out, which the Lord commandeth not? So Bro. reads Lam. 3. 37. 3 How else could the body of Christ have been passable, and subject to tortures, if the divine nature had not left the humane to its infirmities according to Covenant? for Christ was not subject by Nature, but by Covenant only to suffer afflictions; and therefore the divine nature, did by Contract and Covenant, leave the humane, that it might be passable, and that so his obedience to the Articles of the Covenant, might have the condition of meriting. Austin saith in his 60. Tract on John, Christ was troubled, not through any weakness of mind, but of power; Christ admitted the affections of fear, etc. and the infirmities of man's nature, not for want of power to repress them, but by voluntary obedience and humility, that in him they might be meritorious. 4 Christ told Peter, That he must not be protected at this time against the Devil, and his Instruments; and therefore he bid Peter to put up his sword, and not to use it for his protection, saying, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels? But (said he) how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that say, Thus it must be? Mat. 26. 53. 54. I must fulfil all that is written of my sufferings, Mat. 26. 54. Act. 13. 29. Luke 24. 26, 46. Therefore neither my Father nor I, must countenance the use of the sword for my protection; and therefore it is not my Father's will to give, nor my will to pray for twelve legions of Angels to protect me from my sufferings, from Satan, and his instruments, for I have covenanted to be the seed of the woman, and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan, and therefore there is a necessity for my divine nature to withdraw, that Satan may do the worst he can to conquer the patience and obedience of my humane nature, that so he may thereby preserve his Headplot, if he can, from being broken, namely, in case he can prevail to disturb my patience and obedience. 5 With a loud voice Christ propounds this Query, Why hast thou forsaken me? seeing formerly till now thou hast ever protected me against the prevailing power of Satan and his Instruments, 1 From the womb, Psa. 22. 9, 10. 2 From the cruelty of Herod when I hung at my Mother's breast, Matth. 2. 13, 14. 3 From the manifold waylayings of the Jews to kill me, Matth. 26. 55. Joh. 8. 59 & 10. 39 The Answer is, That the Scriptures may be fulfilled, Matth. 26. 56. that say thus it must be, Matth. 26. 54. And therefore Christ told his Disciples saying, now the appointed hour and power of darkness is come upon me, Luk. 22. 53. according to Gods declared decree, in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore take notice of the true reason why God hath forsaken me, For, 1 Else I could not be thus used by the powers of darkness. 2 Else I could not be touched so deeply with the sensible feeling of man's infirmities, as I ought to be. 3 Else it could not be known that I am so sensible of them as I am, unless I did express it by crying out as a man in misery, why hast thou forsaken me? 4 Else it might well be questioned whether ever I had a true humane nature or no, if I should not declare my sense of my present sufferings. 5 Else I cannot make it manifest that I am a true merciful High Priest, except I make it manifest that I am eminently touched with a true sense and feeling of man's infirmities. 6 Neither can I be a complete consecrated Priest except the perfection of my patience and obedience be true and manifested through sharp and harsh sufferings, Heb. 2. 10. 17. 7 Neither can I make my death to be a propitiatory sacrifice, until I am completely consecrated by enduring afflictions. Therefore that I may make it evident that my humane nature is thus qualified, I must cry out with a loud voice at the end of all my sufferings, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? or left me to the prevailing powers of darkness, to endure such an ignominious and painful death? 8 It is most evident that the last part of Christ's Priestly consecration was ordained to be finished by his sufferings, from the malice and enmity of his proclaimed enemy Satan, according to Gen. 3. 15. compared with Heb. 2. 10, 17. and Heb. 5. 8, 9 And this is yet the more to be marked, Heb. 2. 10. because God ordained that the consecration of Aaron and his Sons, should not be finished without some trial of his obedience under some kind of affliction, for God commanded them to keep a strict watch at the door of the Tabernacle for seven days, and seven nights together, in all which space they were separated from their Wives and Families, upon pain of God's heavy displeasure by death; and until they had manifested the perfection of their obedience under this appointed measure of affliction, they might not offer any sacrifice for the procuring of God's Atonement, Levit. 9 7. but as soon as they were thus consecrated, than the very next day they were commanded to draw near to God, and to offer sacrifices of Reconciliation. And to this purpose I have given another hint from the words of Mr. Trap in Reply 27. Hence I reason thus, If the Divine nature had protected the Humane nature of Christ against the power of his proclaimed enemy, Satan, in this appointed hour, for the Prince of darkness to exercise his utmost power against, as he did in former times, from the prevailing power of Herod, in Matth. 2. and from the prevailing power of his Townsmen at the hill Nazaret, Luk. 4 29, 30. and from his conspirators, in Joh. 8. 59 then he could not have fulfilled Gods appointed and declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. & his own Covenant, which was, that he would enter the Lists in his Humane nature, from the seed of the woman, with his combater Satan, and give him so much liberty as to pierce him in the Footsoals as a sinful malefactor, and yet that he would continue obedient through all his greatest temptations and trials. And his Father covenanted that his temptations and trials from his Combater, Satan, should be for his ultimate consecration, and that then he should make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation for the breaking of the Devil's Headplot. Therefore that he might manifest the perfection of his obedience through all his sharpest sufferings from his malignant Combater Satan, his Divine nature must forsake, or rest, or cease or leave his Humane nature, that so his humane nature alone might undergo the combat from the malice of his proclaimed enemy, and might manifest the truth of his humane nature, by evidencing that he was eminently touched with the quick sense and feeling of our infirmities, and by manifesting the perfection of his patience and obedience under all, before he could make his soul a propitiatory sacrifice. And to this sense do the Orthodox speak. Ireneus saith, That Christ was crucified and died, the word (namely, the Divine nature) Resting, that i●, saith Bastingus, In his chap. of Christ's sufferings. not using his power, not putting forth his strength, to the intent he might be crucified and die. And hence we may take notice that this phrase, The Divine nature resting, is the very same with Gods forsaking or leaving of the humane nature of Christ in his combat with Satan; Because the humane nature was no true part of the divine person, but an appendix only, therefore the divine nature could and did leave the humane nature alone to combat with Satan, that so it might be touched with a quick sense of all his ill usage, and might manifest the same by crying out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? as it is expounded by sundry Orthodox, which I will cite by and by. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. If the pain of loss be not joined with the pain of sense, there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry from that person that was God and man. Reply 11. Though that person was God and man, yet that hinders not but that his humane nature might make that bitter and lamentable cry from the sense of the Devils ill usage; his being God and Man in personal union, did indeed privilege his humane nature from sinful perturbations in his passions, and so consequently from God's coacted Justice, but it did not hinder him from his own voluntary passions, nor from his voluntary sufferings from his malicious enemy Satan, nor from manifesting his true sense and feeling of them, b●cause his humane nature was no true part of the divine person, for than it could not have been left of his divine nature to suffer any thing at all, except Mr. Norton, will say, That his divine nature was passable; But because it was no true part, but an Appendix only to his divine person (as Zanchy showeth in his Appendix to his Confession of the Faith) therefore the divine nature might, and did rest, cease, leave, or forsake the humane nature to manage the combat alone with Satan, that so it might be sensible of his sufferings (from Satan's power granted to him in Gen. 3. 15.) more than other men can be, because of the exact purity of his natural temper above all other men, and in these respects it came to pass that he did make that bitter and lamentable cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? I say, that the union of his humane nature to his divine person, was so ineffable, that the divine nature could, and did forsake, leave, cease, or rest from protecting or assisting his humane nature, that so it might undertake the combat alone with Satan, and that so it might be touched with the quick sense and feeling of our infirmites' more than other men can be, and so it made him to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But saith Mr. Norton in page 191. Though the humane nature of Christ from its first union had its dependence & subsistence in his divine person, yet such is the singleness and unmixedness of the divine nature in this union, that it could, and did leave the humane nature to act of itself, according to its own natural principles. As the humane nature of Christ did not subsist alone, so neither doth it perform any humane operations alone; dependence in respect of subsistence, inferreth a dependence in respect of operations, etc. In these words, Mr. Norton doth argue more like to a natural Philosopher, than to a judicious Divine; for though the humane nature of Christ did ever subsist in his divine person from the time of the union, yet it did not subsist in his divine person according to the order of natural causes, but after the ineffable manner of the voluntary cause, of which the rule is not true, posi●â causâ sequitur effectus, for such voluntary causes do work according to the liberty of the voluntary agreement of the persons in Trinity. 2 I say also, that the form of this union cannot be exemplified from any natural or civil union, and therefore the operations that flew from this union, may well differ from the operations that flow from all other unions. I grant that Athanasius doth in some respects fitly exemplify See Pareus Notes on Athanasius Creed Art. ●. this union to the union of our soul and body, making one man, but yet in some respects it will not hold. In two things, saith Pareus, this similitude doth not agree. 1 Because in man, by reason of the union of the reasonable soul and body, some third thing specifically different is made up, to wit, man of matter and form, neither of which alone is man. It is not so (saith he) in Christ, because the word, Assuming the flesh was God, and the same person both before, and after the Incarnation, heretofore without flesh, and afterwards clothed with it. 2 Saith he, The soul of man receives into it the passions of the body, with which it grieveth and rejoiceth, but God, the word, is void of all affection and passion. Therefore seeing this union is so unexpressible, the operations of each nature may well differ from the operations of all other unions. 3 Seeing it was the will of the blessed Trinity, according to their agreement in the voluntary Covenant, that the two natures of the Mediator should keep each nature, and their properties distinct: Thence the Mediator might act either as man only, or as God only, or as God and man jointly: And this observation is of necessary use for the right understanding of many Scriptures, as it is noted by the Dialogue from Mr. Calvin in p. 111. and to him I will add Mr. Thomas Wilson, for in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scriptures, he saith In his 111. Theological Rule, p. 164. thus; Some of the works of Christ were proper to his Godhead, as his miracles. Secondly, Some to his Manhood, as his natural and moral works. Thirdly, Some to his whole person, as his works of Mediation, in which each nature did that which was proper to it (but Mr. Norton makes no good use of this rule.) And all these several operations do arise from the unexpressible nature of this union, which doth work according to the agreement of the persons in the voluntary Covenant: And of this I have also given a touch before in page 174. 2 I have made it evident in the former Chapter, That the most excellent temper, and tender constitution of Christ's humane nature, did make all his sufferings to be abundantly more sharp and keen to his senses, than the like can be to us that are by nature born the bondslaves of sin, corruption, and death; for in that respect, out natural spirits are of a blockish and dull sense, and therefore we cannot abhor misery and death, with that quick sense and feeling, as the pure constitution of Christ's humane nature might, and did do; and therefore we cannot cry out with such a deep sense of it, as he did. 3 In obedience to Gods declared Decree, in Gen. 3. 15. and in obedience to his own Covenant to enter the Lists with Satan, with his humane nature, as it was accompanied with our infirmities; It behoved his divine nature to rest and to leave his humane nature to feel the power of Satan's enmity, because it was now the very appointed hour for the powers of darkness to exercise their utmost enmity, according to God's declaration in Gen. 3. 15. So then the operation of his divine nature in this appointed hour, was to withdraw assistance from his humane nature, and not to protect it as it did at other times, but to leave his humane nature alone in the combat, and to let the Prince of darkness have his full liberty to disturb his patience, and so to pervert his obedience, if he could, or in case he could not prevail, than it was agreed that these trials should be for the consecration of him, as of the Priest and Prince of our salvation to his sacrifice. And to this sense do the Ancient Divines speak: 1 The Passion of Christ, saith Austin, was the sweet sleep of his Divinity. Mr. Rich. Ward in his Commentary on Mat. 27. 42. doth thus paraphrase on these words of Austin; As in a sweet sleep (saith he) the soul is not departed, though the operations thereof be for a time suspended; so during the time of Christ's sufferings, his Godhead rested as it were in a sweet sleep, that so the humanity might suffer in all points according to God's Decree; and to this sense also doth Mr. Perkins speak on the Creed, fol. 121. 2 Theod●r●t on Psal. 22. saith, Christ called that a dereliction which was a permission of the Divinity that the Humanity should suffer. 3 Isyehius in Leu. li. 5. ch. 16. faith, Christ's Deity is said to departed by withdrawing his own power from his Humanity, that he might give time to his passion. 4 The Master of the sentences, saith, the Divine nature did forsake the humane nature. First, By not protecting it. And secondly, By withdrawing his power that so he might suffer. And saith he, in lib. 3. dist. 2. the Deity severed itself because it withdrew protection. And (secondly, saith he) it separated itself outwardly not to defend, but it failed not inwardly to continue the union. If (saith he) it had not withdrawn but exercised power, Christ could not have died. 5 Leo de passi Dom. Ser. 170. saith, That the Lord should be delivered to his passion, it was his Fathers will as well as his own, That not only the Father might leave him, but that after a sort he should forsake himself, not by any fearful shrinking but by a voluntary session (or resting) for the power of Christ crucified contained itself from these wicked ones, and to perform his secret disposition he would not use any manifest power, he that came to destroy death and the author of death, how should he have saved sinners, if he would have resisted his pursuers. Ibidem, Christ (saith he) cried with a loud voice, Why hast thou forsaken me? that he might make it manifest to all for what cause he ought not to be delivered nor defended, but to be left into the hands of his perfecuto●s, which was to be made the Saviour of the world, and the redeemer of all men, not by any miserable necessity, but of mercy; not for lack of help, but of purpose to die for us. Ibidem, And saith he, Let us leave this to the Jews, to think that Christ was forsaken of God, on whom they could execute their rage with such wickedness, who most s●crilegiously deriding him, said, He saved others himself he cannot save. These last words of Leo do most fitly agree to the Prophecy of Isay in chap. 53. 4. there Isay foretold the Jews, that though Christ did manifest the power of his Godhead in healing sicknesses, and carrying away their manifold infirmities from them, yet out of Satan's malice they would esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted, namely in God's anger for his own sins; and thus the Prophet doth blame their gross mistake by imputing his sufferings to be from God's wrath for his own desert. And thus much I think is sufficient to demonstrate the reason why the Divine nature did forsake the Humane, and why the Humane nature propounded this Query with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, it was, that so the humane nature might suffer all that was written of him from his Combater Satan, according to Gods declared Decree, in Gen. 3. 15. SECT. 3. Question III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross? Reply 12. IN two respects God did not forsake Christ on the Cross. 1 He did not forsake his soul in respect of the comfortable fruition of the sense of the good of the promises. 2 He did not forsake him in the formality of his death, namely, he did not suffer Satan and his Instruments to put him to death formally by the power of their tortures. First, I say that God did not forsake Christ's soul in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises. And for the better understanding of the word Forsaken, in Matth. 27. 46. Consider these six sorts of Dereliction. 1 By dis-union of person. 2 By loss of Grace. 3 By diminution or weakening of Grace. 4 In respect of assurance of future deliverance. 5 By withdrawing protection. 6 By depriving his soul of the sense of the good of the promises. Divines do generally account it a most impious thing to affirm that Christ was forsaken of God, any of the four first ways. 1 They affirm that God did not forsake Christ in respect of union, they affirm that the personal union of the two natures was never dissolved. 2 They affirm that he was never forsaken in respect of the loss of Grace. 3 They do generally affirm, That he was not forsaken in respect of diminishing or weakening of any grace in him. The Geneva note on the word Forsaken, in Psa. 22. 1. doth make Christ a sinner inherently. But yet some there are that do affirm that he was forsaken by diminishing or weakening of the Grace of Faith in him; The Geneva note on the word forsaken, Psa. 22. 1. saith thus, Here appeareth that horrible conflict that he suffered between faith and desperation, Is not this a blasphemous note, to say that Christ was in a conflict with desperation through the weakness of faith? is not this an imputation of inherent sin to Christ? Mr. Norton tells me in p. 215. that the Geneva note which I there cited with approbation to the sense of the Dialogue, must not be understood in the Dialogues sense, but it must be interpreted according to the Doctrine of Geneva; I would fain see how he by the Doctrine of Geneva can make a good exposition of this note affixed to Psal. 22. 1. if he mean by the Doctrine of Geneva, the Doctrine of Calvin, than I find in Marlorat on Mat. 27. 46. where he citys calvin's words on the word forsaken, thus, He fought with desperation, yet was he not overcome thereby; this Doctrine of Calvin and the Geneva note agree together, and therefore in likelihood that Geneva note was taken from Calvin at first, though his latter Editions are now somewhat reform; and Mr. Norton himself doth censure Calvin to be unsound in this point, for in pag. 61. he blames Calvin for saying, that Christ suffered the pains of the damned and forsaken men. Now if Christ was in a horrible conflict between faith and desperation, as the Geneva note speaks, than it follows that he was a sinner inherently, for if there be any conflict with doubting (which is less than desperation) it is a sin, Mark. 14. 31. Jam. 1▪ 6, 7. Matth. 21. 21. Truly it is a lamentable thing that this note hath been printed and dispersed in so many thousand Bibles to corrupt men's minds, so that now many can hardly have patience to hear any reasons to the contrary; but I must needs acknowledge that our larger Annotation on Psal. 22. 1. hath made a good Reformation. 4 Divines confess that it was not possible that Christ should be forsaken in respect of assurance of future deliverance and present support because he had faith in the full Sea without any ebb. 5 That Christ was forsaken by Gods withdrawing of outward protection (and not delivering of him from the rage of Satan and his Instruments until they had executed on him all their rage) is acknowledged by the Dialogue, and by many Orthodox lately cited. 6 The last sort of forsaking is that which is affirmed by Mr. Norton, namely, That God forsook Christ's soul in anger, as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promises. But in Chap. 4. I have showed that he doth oftentimes leave out the word sense, and makes Christ to be forsaken concerning the fruition of the good of the promise. And this last kind of forsaking is suitable to his main Tenent, laid down in his foundation-Proposition. Reply 13. This last kind of forsaking as it is asserted by Mr. Norton, is opposed by sundry eminent Divines. 1 By Mr. Robert Wilmot, whom I have cited before in this Chapter at Reply 9 2 Our large Annotation on Psal. 22. 1. which I have cited at Reply 4. 3 I cited Mr Robert Smith, and divers others, at Reply 9 4 I will now examine the word forsaken, once more with the Christ was not so forsaken in his soul, but that he still had the sweet sense of the good of the promises on the Cross. context, for doubtless that is a sure Rule of a right interpretation. 1 Christ doth interrogate in Psal. 22. 1. Why hast thou forsaken me? Is there not good reason that the Divine nature should forsake the Humane, in respect of outward protection? as I have showed in Answer to the second Question, but yet he did not forsake the inward man by any weakening of Grace, nor in respect of the comfort of that Grace; and this is evident by what I have cited in my Answer to the first Question from v. 11. and 19 And also I shall now add another reason by conferring it with v. 24. There Christ doth exhort all the seed of Jacob to praise God, he hath not hid (or turned away) his face from him. Hence it follows by good consequence, that when Christ said, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? he could not mean that God had hid (or turned away) his face from his immortal soul, for than he could not have exhorted the seed of Jacob to praise God, because he had not hid (or turned away) his face from him; This very Argument is also used by our larger Annotation, on Psal. 22. 1. though I did not see it, till I had first made use of it for this exposition. 2 Seeing it is generally acknowledged that Christ was not forsaken in regard of any diminution of Grace; Thence it follows that these words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? must not be understood of any inward forsaking of his soul, for (saith Mr. Rutherford) these words, My God, my In Christ's dying p. 150. God, was spoken with the greatest Faith that ever was, a doubled act of believing, My God, my God. 2 Saith he, It is a word relative to the Covenant between the Father and the Son: My God (saith he) is a Covenant expression, that the Father will keep what he hath promised to his Son, and relateth to the infinite faithfulness of the Covenant maker. Object. But here it will be objected as it was about Mr. calvin's words, That Mr. Rutherford held, That Christ suffered the pain of loss in his soul. Answ. I grant it, yet I say also that that Tenent, and these expressions do cross one another. 4 I do once more propound to consideration what I have cited afore out of Mr. Wilmot, at Reply 9 and in Sect. 4. And to that I will adjoin a fourth Argument from him, from his Exposition of the word always, in Act. 2. 25. where Christ saith thus, I foresaw the Lord always before my face. Always, that is saith Mr. Wilmot, Even in his sorest Agonies. 1 Before his sweaty Agony his soul was troubled, yet than he called God Father, Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony, he could still call God Father, Luk. 22. 44. and prayed to him by the name Father: And in Joh. 11. 42. he said, he knew God heard him always, and therefore even then he must needs have comfort. 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most grievously tormented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abundantly sorrowful, or rounded about with sorrow, yet than he could still call God Father, Matth. 26. 37. 38, 39, 42. 4 When the betrayer was come, and the Band had seized on him, yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence, in Matth. 26. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall set before me more than Twelve Legions of Angels. 5 When he was upon the Cross, and cried, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? doth not the very forefront of that speech ascertain us, that he had even then comfort in his God? Matth. 27. 46. 6 Had not he strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost, when he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit? Luk. 23 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his father, as we see; and knew his Father heard him ever; yea, even through all his sufferings he called him by this fiducial and cordial name Father, we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name, when ever he did mention the name; else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together. Thus far Mr. Wilmot. This I have cited before in Chap. 16. But it is never a whit too often to the considerate. 5 Seeing it is acknowledged that Christ was not forsaken in regard of any diminution of Grace, but that he did always enjoy his Graces in fullness, even as the Sun in its strength; How could he lose the light of God's countenance, or want the sense of the good of the Promises, seeing he enjoyed the full exercise of all Grace? He was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Psa. 47. 7. and above measure, Joh. 3. 34. That is, saith Mr. Ball, he had the whole Spirit; all the gifts of the Holy Spirit in higher degree In the Covenant, p. 310. than any creature, men or Angels; in full abundance, for he that giveth bountifully or largely, doth not measure or number what he giveth, but poureth our copiously, or as we say, from the full heap with both hands. And in pag. 111. (saith he) fullness without measure, is like the fullness of the light of the Sun, or like the water in the Sea, which hath an unmeasurable sufficiency and redundancy, And therefore hence it follows, That seeing the oil of gladness was always in him, in the highest fullness without measure, and without the least diminution, that he could not possible be deprived of the sense of the good of the Promises, in respect of his inward man, though he might be, and was deprived of outward protection from the hands of Satan and his Instruments, because it was so Decreed, Covenanted, and Declared in Gen. 3. 15. And therefore, it behoved the Divine nature to withdraw its protection, and to leave him to try masteries with his Combater, Satan, in his Humane nature, as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities, that so he might suffer from his Combater Satan, all that was written of him in Gen. 3. 15. But this weakness of his (saith Austin) was power, because the Divine nature did exercise power to leave his Humane nature, that so his Human nature might suffer in obedience to his Covenant. But this is also to be well marked, that when the divine nature rested, or ceased to protect and assist the humane nature, it did no way withdraw the exercise of his inward graces, which he had received at his Incarnation, and at his Baptism from the unction of the holy Spirit, above measure (as I noted before) by which his soul was supported under all his greatest tortures on the Cross; and therefore as Stephen, and many other Martyrs, had the joyful vision of God's countenance, and the sense of the good of the promises to support their inward man, under their greatest outward tortures, so had Christ; though all of them wanted the vision of outward protection as well as Christ, and in that respect they might all say, as Christ said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And as John Hus and Amond de lar●y said, as I have noted it in the Dialogue, In Fox tom. 1. p 50, & tom. 2. p. 130. p. 58. In the conflict (saith Ball on the Covenant, pag. 284.) his Faith was most firm, not shaken with any degree of unbeleef. And saith Dr. Sibs on Matth. 27. 46. Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace, as if Faith, or Love, (or Joy in God) or any other Grace were taken from Christ. O no (saith he) he believed when he said, My God, my God. Unto these words of his I put in the Grace of Joy in a parenthesis, because he had said before in general, That Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace, and thence I infer, that then he was not forsaken of the Grace of Joy, in the good of God's 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 God's 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 God's countenance, and of the good of his promises, he like a conquering Combater endured the cross, and despised the shame, Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christ's 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 Christ's 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. norton's Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity, that makes Christ's 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 Christ's 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, Leu. 10. 19 & 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring God's Reconciliation, and God's Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoicing, Num. 12. 14. Leu. 10. 19, 20. Deut. 16. 11, 15. Neh. 8. 9 doubtless therefore all Christ's soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satan's 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 senses; 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. 1●. 2. Isa. 9 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa. 53. 12. I will divide, saith God, and he shall divide the spoil 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 Paradise, 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 thief; and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion. SECT. 4. Secondly, I come now to show 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 footsoals, namely, to crucify 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, than 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 commandment 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 myself. Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christ's 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 only Priest in the formality of his own death, Heb. 9 26, 28. & 10. 12. and no other man's 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 coacted by God's Justice as other men's is: But his death was a death of Covenant only, and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of man's 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. norton's 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 Christ's death, and the death of other men that are inherent sinners. More easy it is (saith Origen) for a man to put 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 citys, 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 Christ's 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, than his death was not coacted by God's 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 adam's) if he could. 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater, Satan, he would send forth his Spirit as the only Priest in the formality of his own death, that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for man's Redemption from Satan's Headplot; both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exactly 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 Father's 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 God's 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 Pilate 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 Godhead (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 joint 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, only (though unjustly) in the Jews account, but not as a Mediator; as Mediator only, in God's account, but not as a Malefactor. This distinction (saith he) in name, but in truth a Sophism 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 God's 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 Sophism, namely, a false kind of arguing. 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue; Christ's 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 endeavoured 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 expressly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100 Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer. If Christ's death was a suffering, than 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 d●ath 〈◊〉 of●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 adam's) that so he might put him to death, formally, as he did the other Malefactors. 3 It is also evident that Christ was more entirely 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 showed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christ's voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony. And unto him I will add Beda; Jesus hungered (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 man's 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 itself. 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, etc. they were not pressed from him, from the sense of God's wrath, as Mr. Norton holds. And saith Beda, his death was truly free and not forced, therefore especially in the last act of his death, he was the only active Priest, in breathing out, or sending out, his soul from his body. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner, which last (saith he) the Dialogue itself expressly rejecteth. Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it; for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature (as it was accompanied with our infirmities) to enter the Lists with his envious Combater, Satan, and also permitted Satan to enter the Christ was not his own executioner, or selfmurderer, though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice. Lists with Christ, and to assault him with a Band of Soldiers with staves and swords, yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them, and run them into his own body, on purpose to kill himself, that so he might be his own executioner (●● Saul was, to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries) this kind of killing is Diabolical; and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner; therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent. The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body, and pour out his own blood, with nails and spear, as the Roman Soldiers did, yet he broke his own body in pieces, by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power; And thus Beza makes Christ to break his body actively as well as passively; But it is a profane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice, to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death; and it is a like profane expression to call such a death Self-murder, or Homicide. If Abraham had formally killed Isaac, as he intended, yet he had not been isaack's murderer, no nor yet his executioner, according to the known use of the word; neither was Isaac to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide, (being now thirty three years old, and therefore able to have resisted his See Beza Annot. on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haym● there also. Father) in submitting himself to be bound, and to be laid on the Altar to be killed: But in that act we see how God esteemed it, for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest, and Isaac the Sacrifice: And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death, in his Divine nature he was the Priest, and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice (as the Dialogue saith) or thus, by the joint concurrence of both his natures, he was both Priest and Sacrifice. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman, according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said lay his hand upon the Jews, yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman: Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac, yet Isaac is said no where to be slain by Abraham; as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, so was Isaac sacrificed, that is to say, interpretatively, or virtually, not actually. Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100 are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton, and the intent of those instances was no more but this, namely to exemplify that though the Jews are said to kill Christ, yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body (though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life) but the last act was done by himself, as he was the Priest in his own death. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture, that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews? Act. 2. 37. and 4. 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say, that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life; but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word, you have slain; The fact is said to be theirs, by whose counsel and egging forward it was done; By this note it appeareth that in their judgement, Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews, but virtually only; and so Isaac is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense (so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21.) because he did really intent and endeavour to do it. So then, I hope the Dialogue saith true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons' bustling contradiction; namely, that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally. But in case he was put to death formally by second causes, than it follows, that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers, for they had the power of life and death at this time, and not the Jews, as I have showed at large in the Dialogue; the Jews and Romans were true murderers, but not the Priest in the formality of Christ's death and sacrifice: This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton. But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say, That the Devil in the Roman powers, was the Priest in the formality of Christ's death and sacrifice, as they must be, if they were the formal cause of Christ's death; and to me it is as hard a speech to say, That the wrath of God the Father, was the formal cause of Christ's death, as some say it was, and as Mr. Norton saith also, sometimes in true effect; for in page 79, he saith, That Christ's death was joined with th● curse made up of the pain of sense, and the pain of loss; and in page 70, he saith, It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction, That Christ should only suffer a bodily death, and presently after he saith, Christ died as a sinner imputatively, pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicting with eternal death. Hence I reason thus, If the wrath of God the Father, did put Christ to death formally, than the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ, which is quite contrary to Gods own established order; for by his oath he made Christ an unchangeable Priest, that so he might be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice, Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death, nor to any other misery, but by Covenant only, and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death, than he gave way to, according to his own voluntary Covenant; he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities, and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan, and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could, even to the piercing of him in the footsoals; but he also covenanted, that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally, but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death, and according to this Covenant, God commanded him to lay down his own life, and to take it up again, Joh. 10. 17, 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue M. Norton passeth over, & never speaks to it first or last; which is this, He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice, must be a Priest; but the death of Christ, was a Sacrifice, therefore he that takes away his life formally, must be the Priest. Hence the Dialogue infers, that the Roman Soldiers did not take away his life formally, because they were Executioners, rather than Priests; neither did his Father's wrath take away his life formally, because he was not the Priest, and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself, and therefore none but he must take away his life formally. Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument, but he passeth by this, and pleads that Christ's suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments, was full satisfaction, and thence he must also hold, that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally, for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christ's death, Heb. 9 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion, when there is not one Text, nor (I believe) one Classical Author, who affirmeth, that Christ, as the next and formal cause shed his blood; but on the contrary, plentiful Texts and Testimonies, that he was put to death, killed, and slain, and that by the Jews, Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess. 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9, 12. and 6, 9 to contradict not only the godly, whether learned, or unlearned, both of the present, and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus: But also the Scriptures themselves in saying, The Jews did not actually put Christ to death. Reply 23. I have showed immediately afore, that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews, with murdering the Lord of life, yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power, and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors, some ancient, and some later, that concur with the Dialogue, That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death, and Sacrifice. 1 Athanasius c●nt. Arianos', Orat. 4. saith, To have power to lay down his soul when he would, and to take it again, this is not the property of men, but it is the power of the Son of God; for no man dyeth by his own power, but by necessity of nature, and that against his will; but Christ being God, had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body, and to resume the same again when he would. 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9 saith, Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh, when he saith, None taketh my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself, and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17, 1●. down, and power to take it again? Let us consider what he meaneth, who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death: This neither Moses, nor any of the Patriarches, Prophets, or Apostles did say, besides Jesus, for if Christ had died as the Thiefs did that were crucified with him, he could not have said, That he laid down his soul of himself, but after the manner of such as die; but now Jesus crying with a strong voice, gave up the ghost, and as a King left his body, his power greatly appeared in this, that at his own free power and will leaving his body, he died. 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur. Chr. Orat. 1. saith, Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself, of whom dependeth all power, how with full and sovereign power, and not by necessity of nature, he severed his soul from his body, as he said, None taketh my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself, I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. 4 Turtullian de Resur. carnis cap. 48. saith thus, The Lord, though he carried about a soul fearing unto death, yet not falling by death. 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith, With a faint voice, or rather speechless, we die that are of the earth, but he which came from heaven, breathed out his soul with a loud voice. Ibid. ad Hedibiam, Q. 8. We must say it was a show of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would, and to take it again; yea the Centurion hearing him say, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, and straight way, of his own accord, to send forth his spirit, moved with the greatness of this wonder, said, Truly this was the Son of God. 6 chrysostom in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith, Therefore Christ cried with a loud voice, that he might show this to be done by his own power; Mark saith, That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, and the Centurion also therefore chief believed, because he saw Christ die of his own accord and power. 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith, By so doing, the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare, that he had his whole life and death in his own free power; wherefore Mark saith, that Pilate, not without admiration, asked if Christ were already dead (he addeth likewise) that the Centurion chief for that reason believed, because he saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry, and signification of great power. 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini, saith, What entreaty for light shall we think was there, where the soul was both sent out with power, and recalled with power. 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund, lib. 3. saith, Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would, and take it again when he would, how great power might the Godhead of Christ have? And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul, because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person. 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John, on these words, None taketh my soul from me, saith, No birth-Law taketh my soul from me, no encroaching time that tameth all things, nor necessity, which is unchangeable counsel; but ruler of myself, I of my own accord yield up my willing soul. 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voice sent forth the Spirit, saith, In that the Evangelist saith, Christ sent out his Spirit, he showeth, it is a point of Divine power to send out the soul; was As Christ himself said, None can take my soul from me. Ibid. In Mark. 15. he saith, For none hath power to send out the soul, but he that is the Creator of souls. 12 Theophilact in Matth. 27. saith. Jesus cried with a loud voice, that we should know it was true which he said, I have power to lay down my soul; for not constrained, but of his own accord he dismissed his soul. Ibid. Saith he, in Mar. 15. The Centurion seeing that he breathed out his soul so like a Commander of death, wondered, and confessed him. Ibid. Saith he, in Luk. 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 voice, sent forth his soul, saith, Whereby it appeareth that voice 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, quom●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 myself; and this those that were present greatly marvelled at, as the Gospel observeth, when after that loud voice he presently gave up the Ghost, for they that were fastened to the tree were tormented with a long death; wherefore the two Thiefs had their legs broken that they might die; but Christ was wondered at because he was found dead, which thing we read Pilate marvelled at, when Christ's 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 departed from the body against her will, and not when she would, or as she would. 2 That the manner of Christ's 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 only had power to lay down his soul, who only 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 Christ's 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 straightway 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 he saw Jesus, besides the manner of other men, after a strong cry, presently to breathe 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 voice, is a proof of a greater power, than may be found in a man dying, whereby he showeth 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 Gualther in Joh. 6. 9 saith, But let us see the manner of Christ's death, who as John writeth with bowing down his head yielded up the spirit; Luke saith, be cried with a loud voice, 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, showeth a power and virtue 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 show 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 voice, 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 Pilate marvelled that Christ was so soon dead; and the Lord himself said, None taketh my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself, 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 rendered 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 citys 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 died not with extremity of pain as others do; but he willingly yielded 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 Christ's 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 mere suffering, etc. out of power, and not out of infirmity only. 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith, These words may be expounded two manner of ways. First, That either Christ putteth his life from him, himself remaining perfect, as if a man should put off his . Or else secondly, That he died of his own accord. The first of these two ways is active, and the similitude, as if a man put off his , I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard, for both of them use this similitude, to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body. 26 John White of Dorchester, in his Way to the Tree of Life, page 186. saith at lastly, When he was nailed to the Cross, he voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father, as it is evident, both in that he was dead a good space before the two Thiefs that were crucified with him; whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body, he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they; and besides, by yielding up his life when it was yet whole in him, as it evidently appeared by his loud cry, which he uttered at the very instant of his death, as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37, 39 and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up, Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life, according to the will of his Father, for his people's sins. And Mr. Perkins on the Creed, p. 141. agreeth thus far, That the state and condition of our Saviour's body (on the Cross) was such, that he might have lived longer, yet saith he, by the Council of God, he must to die at that place, at that time, and at that hour, where and when he died. And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation, that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 years exactly cut out, Dan. 9 24. 27 John Tr●p in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus, Jesus cried with a loud voice, therefore (saith he) he laid down his life at his own pleasure, for by his loud outcry it appeared, that he could have lived longer if he had listed, for any decay of nature, under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body, but much greater in his soul. And saith Trap in Joh. 19 33. He took his own time to die, Joh. 19 33. and therefore in vers. 30. it is said, He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost; Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost. And (saith he) he cried also with a loud voice, and died; which shows that he wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer, if it had pleased him. 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks, pag. 492. in Quarto. And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect. But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons' overbold and false charge. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself, do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse, the one opposeth not the other. Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so. No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was come. But I say also, that had they been put to answer this Question; Whether did the formality of Christ's satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost, or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost? They would soon have answered, That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered, until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience, by his own Priestly power; and the reason is plain, because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of God's atonement, and there can be no formality of a sacrifice, but by giving up the ghost; or in case any shall deny this Answer, I believe they will entangle themselves in other inconveniences, that they cannot escape, as long as they deny the said Answer. 2 I say further, That the one doth most evidently oppose the other, namely, in the formality of satisfaction, for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christ's spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death, and sometimes contradicts that, and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death. Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell, before his death was completed, (as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm) then the formality of his death and sacrifice, was altogether needless, as to the point of satisfaction, which is high blasphemy to affirm. Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth join his spiritual death, and his bodily death together, in the point of satisfaction, as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death, as in pag. 122, 153, 174, 213, etc. And thus he makes Christ to die in a cloud, for he makes the soul of Christ to departed out of his body, under the cloud of God's vindicative wrath, when he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. But in page 32. he doth contradict this, for there he saith, That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God, which (saith he) doth answer the suffering of the second death, before he suffered his natural death. And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself, before his humane nature was dissolved by death. In both these places you see that he doth hold, That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death (for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ) And hence it follows, that he doth most dangerously affirm, that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless, as to the point of satisfaction, as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine, This reason drawn from the final cause of Christ's sufferings, is most derogatory to the infinite worth of Christ's bloody sacrifice. On the other hand, when he makes him to die formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God; He makes the Father to be the Priest in his death and sacrifice, which is quite contrary to his own established order, for he hath established Christ to be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice, by his oath, which is an unalterable thing; for his oath doth witness, that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant, to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice. I believe it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma, which he hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles. But saith Mr. Norton in page 85, 167, 168. We read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life, but not that he took it away by violence. The same word that is used here concerning Christ, Peter hath concerning himself, I will lay down my life for thy sake, Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints, because he laid down his life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly aught to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peter's laying down his life for Christ, and Christ's laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him, I will lay down my life for thy sake, Joh. 13. 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Joh. 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth; and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth, if they be called thereto, rather than to deny it. But the death of Christ must be considered, not only as he was a Martyr from his Combater Satan, but it must also be considered, as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction (to God's Justice for man's Redemption) in the formality of it. In the first sense, Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd, the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep; that is to say, He spares not to venture his life to encounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy (of his elect Sheep.) The old Serpent, according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue, as the good Shepherd David did, the prey (or the Lamb which was taken for a spoil) from the Lion, and the Bear, 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr. 2 But in the second sense, his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it, and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power, and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17, 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17, 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering, that is expressed by Peter, or by any other Martyr, as it appears by these particulars. First, Saith Christ in v. 11. & 15 I lay down my life for my sheep; I am the good Shepherd, I will not play the Coward to fly when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep, but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combat with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep: I am ready to venture my life in the Combat with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satan's spoil, for though I know before hand, by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me, and to use me as a sinful Malefactor, for a time, which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan, and will so exactly manage the Combat by my humane nature, for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combat, that my death at last, shall not only be a death of Martyrdom, such as Peter speaks of, but over and above, I will make my death, in the formality of it, to be a sacrifice of Reconciliation (according to the eternal Covenant) for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep: I will divide the spoil with the strong enemy Satan; I will redeem the Elect, though he keep the refuse, and therefore, Secondly, Christ doth still amplify the most excellent nature of his death, saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of myself, namely, by my own will, desire, and power, according to my voluntary Covenant, for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter, and therefore I must never be overruled by any supreme power, for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is. Thirdly, Christ doth still amplify the transcendent nature of his death, saying, None takes my life from me; and if none (saith chrysostom) then surely not death; that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19 was denounced as a death to be coacted by the justice of God for original sin; this kind of death could not take away Christ's life from him; therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only; it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest, and to be accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation, as the full price of man's Redemption. But on the contrary, if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam, than God might in justice have taken away his life from him, volence, nolence, than God might in justice have said to death, Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner, or as on a guilty Surety, and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by God's justice, and then his death had been no more but a coacted natural death, as Mr. Norton makes it to be. But the blessed Scriptures do testify that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death, Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it, Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men, that are sinners by Gods legal imputation, and therefore Christ said, None takes my life from me. Fourthly, Christ doth still proceed to amplify the transcendent nature of his death, saying, I have power to lay it down, namely, of myself, as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence; other men, sometimes have a great desire to die, and to lay down their lives formally, and yet they cannot die according to their earnest desire, because they want a power to effect it. Jonab had a great desire to die, and yet he had not power to die, and therefore he prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord, take away my vital soul from me, Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to die, but yet I cannot die by my own will, desire, and power, except I should use some sinful violence against my life. Elijah also had a great desire to die, and yet he had not power to die, and therefore he prayed unto God, saying, O Lord, take away my vital soul, 1 King. 19 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself, when the appointed hour was come, to make his soul a sacrifice. Fifthly, Saith Christ, I have the same power to lay down my vital soul, that I have to take it up again, and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life, with my power which I have to take it up again: This saith Origen, (afore cited) neither Moses, nor any of the Patriarches, Prophets, or Apostles did say besides Jesus. Sixthly, Christ doth still make another addition to set forth the transcendent nature of his death, This Commandment (saith he) I have received of my Father; no other man ever had, or shall have the like positive Command to be both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death as I have. If Abraham had offered up Isaac in sacrifice by a formal death, yet that Priest and Sacrifice had been in two distinct persons, and so Isaac could not have been a complete Mediator in his death; But saith Christ, It is my Father's Commandment, that I must be the Mediator of the New Testament through death, Heb. 9 15, 16. therefore I must be both Priest and Heb. 9 15, 16. Sacrifice in one and the same person, and not in two persons; This peculiar positive Commandment I have received of my Father, it is proper only to my person and office, as I am ordained to be the only Mediator between God and man in my death and sacrifice. Christ (saith Mr. Ball) was Lord of his own life, and therefore he had power to lay it down and take it up; And this See Ball on the Covenant, p. 287. power (saith he) he had, not solely by virtue of the hypostatical union, but by virtue of a peculiar Command, Constitution and Designation to that service, Joh. 10. 18. And saith Grotius, The death of Christ was not determined by any Law, but by a special Covenant with his Father: And hence is follows, if there had not been a voluntary Covenant See Grotius in his War and Peace, part 1. c. 36. preceding, there could not have been any Commandment used by the first Person over the second Person; and therefore this Commandment to lay down his life, must not be understood of a supreme moral Command as Mr. Norton understands it, for in page 103. he saith, This act of Christ in laying down his life, was an act of legal obedience. And, saith he, in page 192. For the Mediator to suffer death as our Surety in a way of justice, i● an act of legal obedience; but by the Commandment which Christ received from his Father, I understand the Decree of God, that the conditions of the eternal Covenant should effectually be performed, causing such a thing to come to pass effectually, and so God is said to command his own Mercy, and to command his own blessed Promises to come to pass. See Ains. in Psal. 42. 9 and in Psal. 105. 8. and in Psal. 133. 3. and in Gen. 50. 16. and in Leu. 25. 21. Seventhly, Put these two speeches together, I lay down my life for my sheep, Joh. 10. 15. And secondly, I have power to lay it down. and power to take it up again, verse 18. and they do plainly show, that the true nature of my death, is to be considered both as it is a Martyrdom from my malicious Adversary Satan, and as it is a sacrifice in the formality of it by my own Priestly power: And therefore, Eighthly, In both these consideration, ●● Father doth love me, verse 17. and he hath testified his loving acceptance both of my person, and of this service of mine. First, By his own voice from heaven at my Instalment, Matth. 3. 17. And secondly, At my Transfiguration, when he se●● Moses and Elias to inform my Disciples of my Departure, which I should shortly after accomplish by my death at Jerusalem; Then there came a voice out of the Cloud, saying, This is my wellbeloved Son, in whose Combat and Sacrifice, which he is shortly to perform at Jerusalem, I am well pleased, satisfied, and reconciled for the redemption Luke 9 31. 3● of all the Elect, Luke 9 31, 35. These eight▪ Considerations taken from the Text, and laid together, do clearly evidence, That the manner of Christ's laying down his life for his sheep, is of a transcendent nature, to the manner of Peter's laying down his life in Martyrdom for Christ, though Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly compare the manner of their death to be alike, without making any difference, by which means he doth beguile both his own soul and his Reader, of the comfort of the full sense of this blessed Scripture of John 10. 17, 18. And Tindal doth declare his sense of this Scripture by his translation which goes thus; Therefore doth my Father love me, because I put my life from me, that I might take it again, no man takes it from me, but I put it away of myself, I have power to put it from me, and power to take it again. Hence I gather from this phrase, I have power to put my life from me, that he held as the Ancient Divines did, That Christ put his life from him as a man puts off his , for so the Ancient Divines use the comparison, and saith Cyril, Derecta fid●, without constraint of any, Christ of himself laid down his own soul for us. It is evident, that the Devil and his Instruments did use constraint as much as they could devise to force his soul out of his body; But, saith Cyril, he laid down his soul for us, not by their constraint, but at his pleasure: And saith Epiphanius, Contra Ariomanitas Haeres. 69. The Deity together with the soul, did move to forsake the sacred body. But saith Mr. Norton in page 162. Christ had less strength of nature left to bear his Torments than the Thiefs had; Therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to bear his Cross, that is, to help him bear it. Reply 26. It is granted by the Ancient Divines, that Christ had voluntary weakness, but not necessary weakness of nature by the justice of God's curse, as sinners have. 2 I have formerly showed, That Christ was not appointed to combat with Satan and his Instruments by the power of his divine nature, but by his humane nature alone, which he voluntary assumed, together with our true natural infirmities, of grief, fear, sorrow, etc. that so he might be touched with the sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings from his proclaimed Combater Satan, and therefore for the better manifestation of his said voluntary infirmities (for necessary infirmities as we have, he had none) his Godhead put forth a power to withdraw protection from his humane nature, that so his humane nature might be the more sensibly touched with the feeling of our infirmities. And withal I say, That though Christ had this voluntary weakness, yet it did not decay his natural vigour by degrees, as ●he like sufferings doth decay our sinful natures, for the constitution of his humane nature was so perfectly orgonized and moulded, that he could at his pleasure take our true humane infirmities, for the accomplishing of his Combat, according to the Articles of the eternal Covenant, ●s he did in his Agony in the Garden. And again, at his pleasure, he could reassume his perfect strength of nature, as he did after his prayers in the Garden (as I have formerly shown more at large) he died not (saith Mr. Smith of Clavering afore cited▪) with extremity of pains as others do. And saith Mr. White of Dorchester, and Mr. Perkins afore cited, by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body, he might have subsisted under his torments longer than the two Thiefs. And saith Erasmus (afore cited) He did not faint as others do, the strength of his body by little and little decaying. And saith Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue, page 101. Christ died not by degrees as his Saints do; his senses did not decay, no pangs of death took hold upon him, but in perfect sense, patience and obedience, both of body and soul, he did, by his infinite power voluntarily resign his Spirit, as he was praying, into the hands of his Father, without any trembling or struggling, or without any show of the sense of his pains. And several others both of the ancient and later Divines, I have immediately cited that speak to this purpose, which proves that Christ had no necessary weakness to bear his Cross, but voluntary weakness he had at his pleasure, that he might be truly touched with the feeling of our infirmities. And take also into consideration what Austin saith the Trinit. lib. 13. c. 14. where he expounds 2 Cor. 13. 4. thus, even of that 2 Cor. 13. 4. infirmity (wherein Christ was crucified) the Apostle also saith, The weakness of God is stronger than men; Whatsoever seemed weakness in Christ (saith he) is so called in comparison of his divine power. And again, his weakness was such, that it far passed the power and strength of us men, and therefore in 1 Cor. 1. 24, 25. Christ crucified, is called the power of God, because he was both God and man in one person, and therefore as soon as he had finished all his sufferings, wherein he shown 1 Cor. 1. 24, 25. his true voluntary weakness; he breathed out his soul, even whiles he was in the full strength of nature, by the joint concurrence of both his natures. To die, saith Bernard, is a great infirmity, but so to die (saith he) is an exceeding power. Hence than I conclude, That when the Executioners did compel a man of Cyren to bear his Cross, that is, to help him bear it: It doth not prove that Christ had less strength of nature left to bear it than the Thiefs had, as Mr. Norton doth argue; it proves no more but this, either that Christ had voluntary weakness, or else that they thought him to have such necessary weakness appertaining to his nature, as other sinful men have that are over-burdened, for they could not discern his voluntary weakness, from necessary weakness, unless they had known him to be God and man in one person, and therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross; And who can tell but that the Thiefs had some to help them bear their Cross as well as Christ had? and therefore it is a weak argument to prove that Christ had less strength of nature to bear his Cross, than the two Thiefs, because they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross; seeing the Scripture is silent whether the two Thiefs did bear their own Cross, without any help from others. But saith Mr. Norton in page 168. 'Tis true, no Torments, though in themselves killing, could kill Christ until he pleased; and it is also true, that Torments, killing in themselves, could kill him when he pleased. And saith he in page 86. Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power, Joh. 10. 18. yet (saith he) by his limited power he could not; But as our Surety, he was bound to permit the course of Poysical causes, and the prevailing power of darkness for the fulfilling of what was written concerning him, Luke 22. 53. The J●ws therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes, not only might, but also (through his voluntary obliged permission) did take away his life, they did not only endeavour, but also actually kill him, etc. Reply 27. I have often warned, to have it the better marked, That the death of Christ is set out to us two ways in the blessed Scriptures. First, Either more largely by his suffering the pains of death, as a sinful Malefactor from his envious Combater Satan. O● secondly, more strictly, by setting out the formality of his death, as it was made a sacrifice, when his soul was separated from his body by his own Priestly power. But Mr. Norton is much displeased with this distinction, because it crosseth his Doctrine of Satisfaction, by suffering the essential Torments of Hell, as our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam. Now in the first sense it is true, That Christ was ordained to be the seed of the sinful deceived woman, and in that nature, as it was accompanied with our true humane infirmities, he was to combat with our malicious Enemy Satan; and in that respect he must permit the course of Physical causes, and the prevailing power of the Prince of darkness to do him all the mischief he could to provoke his patience, and to disturb him in the course of his obedience according to God's Declaration of the Combat in Gen. 3. 15. 2 But yet notwithstanding, it is not any where written, that Christ covenanted to let the powers of darkness to take away his life formally: I do not find that Christ had limited himself by his obliged permission to let the Jews and Romans take away his life actually and formally, as Mr. Norton holds: Nay, I say, the blessed Scriptures do plainly deny this, as I have opened Joh. 10. 17, 18. in Reply 25. Secondly, It is also further evident, that none but himself was ordained to be the Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice, because God made him a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek by an oath, which declares, That according to the eternal Decree, and the unchangeable Council Heb. 7. 21. and Covenant of God, he should be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice; and in that respect Christ saith, None taketh my vital soul from me, I lay it down of myself, I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again, This Commandment have I received of my Father, Joh. 10. 17, 18. Joh. 10. 17, 18. And hence I reason thus, If Christ received this Commandment from his Father, then doubtless his Father had covenanted, that he should be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice, and that he would accept it as the full price of man's Redemption. 3 I have often showed that Christ's humane nature was so perfect, that it was privileged from our natural death and sufferings; and that his death and sufferings was undertaken only by his voluntary Covenant; and that Covenant made it upon performance according to the Articles, to be the full price of man's Redemption. These two ways the blessed Scriptures do often speak of the death of Christ. First, Of his passive death. And secondly, Of his active death: But because his passive death from his malignant Combater Satan, was accompanied with very many ignominious punishments and reproachful Tortures which he was permitted to use, as thinking thereby to provoke his patience, and so to spoil his obedience, that so he might not make his soul a sacrifice: Therefore much Scripture is taken up to record the long story of his passive death, and in that long and sharp trial, his perfect patience and obedience, through all his ignominious sufferings, is much to be admired, especially from the time that he was apprehended to the end of the time of his crucifying, which was twelve full hours, and he abode under the pains of a violent death for three hours together; and all the actions that fell in about his sufferings in all this time were many, and therefore the story thereof must needs be long, and his sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings, doth not only prove the truth of his humane nature, but the perfection of his patience and obedience; and in that respect his sufferings were ordained to be for the perfection of his Priestly Consecration to his sacrifice, Heb. 2. 10. And therefore as soon as he had finished his Priestly Consecration by suffering the utmost of Satan's temptations Heb. 2. 10. Christ's Priestly Consecration. Christ's Sacrifice. and trials, he presently after, without delay, made his vital soul a sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures, as the formality of all satisfaction for man's Redemption. But because this short singular act of his sacrifice, was done as it were but in a moment of time, and because it was done in the midst of his sensible torments on the Cross; therefore it comes to pass, that this short singular act of his sacrifice is not so much marked as it ought to be. But, most an end, the long obvious story of his sufferings from his Combater Satan (which indeed doth belong to his sacrifice, as much as the consecration of the Priest doth to the Sacrifice) is named instead of full satisfaction, and so it may be justly called by the figure Synecdoche, provided his sacrifice, in the formality of his death, by his own Priestly power be not neglected: but a real distinction ought to be observed when the parts of Christ's Priesthood, are to be explained, though this distinction is often slighted and divided by Mr. Norton. So then from the long passive action, Christ may be truly said to be killed and slain (for he was crucified with the sores of death) even as truly as it is said that Christ was the Son of Joseph; for indeed he was the Son of Joseph in a true legal sense, because he was born of joseph's wife after Marriage, and in that respect, he was truly and properly, in Laws esteem, the Son of Joseph, and accordingly he was every where esteemed, and called the Son of Joseph, yea his mother Mary, that best knew the truth, told her Son Jesus, that his Father Joseph sought after him, Luke 2. 48. yea and Jesus himself did also acknowledge Joseph to be his true Father, according to Laws esteem, and therefore he was subject to him as to his proper Father, for nine and twenty years together; namely, until he was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office (and then he had the business of another Father to do) and the world in general (some few excepted) knew no other, but that he was the true natural Son of Joseph, and herefore no man did contradict that usual talk and speech; and yet notwithstanding all this plain and downright speaking, Christ was not the true natural Son of Joseph; he was legally, but not formally the Son of Joseph. So in like sort it may be as truly said, That Christ was killed and slain by the sores of death on the Cross by the Jews, because they did as much to kill him, as they did to kill their own Prophets, 1 Thes. 1. 15. yea Christ himself foretold his Disciples that he should be killed by the Jews, Mark. 8. 31. Mark. 12. 8. and all the Prophets said, It should be so, Gen. 3. 15. Psal. 22. Isa. 53. and the Evangelists said, It was so, Luke 24. 20. Act. 2. 23. and the Martyrs in Rev. 5. 9, 12. said, It was so; and yet in verse 6. they say also that he stood there, as though he had been killed; both speeches are true, and both are truly affirmed; For first, He was truly killed and slain both by the Jews, and by the Roman powers, in Laws esteem; and yet the Martyrs said, It was but as though it were so; legally they killed him, but formally they did not kill him (though they did what they could to kill him formally, and they thought they had killed him formally, because he died formally whiles he was under the sores of death) but indeed they could not kill him formally, because God had given power to Christ to lay down his life formally of himself, and that no other created power should take away his life from him, as I have formerly expounded, Joh. 10. 17, 18. Himself was ordained to be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice, as soon as he had fulfilled all the tortures of the Cross from his Combater Satan, but that act of separating his soul from his body, was not so sensible to the beholders as his external tortures of death were, and therefore they thought nothing less was the true cause of his death. They could not by the power of their natural reason discern how God did interpose his power between the tortures of death, and their ordinary kill effect, neither could they discern the difference that was between his sinless nature, and their own corrupt nature, nor yet how he was God and man in personal union, and therefore they could not know as they ought to have known, how he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice, and that he must offer himself by his eternal Spirit, that so he might be the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of Mediatorial death, Heb. 9 14, 15. And yet this ignorance both of the Jews and Romans did no whit exempt them from being the true murderers of the Lord of life, in as high a degree, as if his Godhead had not interposed to hinder their kill power; as we may see by that eminent example of Justice that was done by Darius upon such like murderers of Daniel; for after that Darius was come to the Lion's Den, and perceived that God had interposed his power, between the fierce devouring nature of the ravenous Lions, and their executive power, and that Daniel was not formally killed by them, he did not in that respect excuse daniel's accusers from being the true murderers of Daniel; but on the contrary, he did adjudge them to be daniel's true murderers, and therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lion's Den, and to be killed as the true murderers 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 only 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 Devil's Instruments, to be his only priestly act in his sacrifice. But for the reason's 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 Devil's 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 showed, 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 only 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 be 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 Leu. 8. 30. with oil, and then with blood; this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christ's Consecration to his Priestly Office. First, He was anointed with the oil 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 only 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 patiented 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 Christ's humane nature, and of his sacrifice, 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the only 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 showed in p. 91, etc. Therefore when he came into the world, he said, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst 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 fullness of time.) And therefore in the fullness 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, etc. 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 wo●d Sanctify and make holy, in the Law, is often ascribed to God's atonement and forgiveness, procured by sacrifice; and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in God's 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 Christ's body (sanctify 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 only meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation, atonement, pardon and forgiveness; So than it is God's Atonement, so procured, that did sanctify the sinner or make him holy and righteous in God's sight, in respect of his state (in relation to God's favour) 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, than 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 God's reconciliation and atonement 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 God's 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 only 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 God's forgiveness from his atonement 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 13, 14. Leu. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by God's Atonement, and a sinner's righteousness is the same thing, contrary to M. Nortons' long discourse in p. 209, 210, 211, 212, etc. phrase doth testify, in Heb. 9 13. and in Leu. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36, 37. to Purify and Sanctify are Sinonimous terms; and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus; If the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctify, to the purifying of the flesh, Heb 9 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works? in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge, w●th the word sanctify; and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinner's Justification in God's sight, for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts, etc. did sanctify or make their bodies holy, because it procured God's Atonement for the expiation of their legal sins, by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary, Leu. 11. 44. and 19 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1, 2, 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense, and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled, what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again? but to observe the Laws of their legal washings, and cleansings, which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his atonement, pardon and forgiveness, and then they were made holy again, or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh, Heb 9 13. Leu. 11. 44. Numb. 6. 8, 9, Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16, 19, Exod. 22. 31. Leu. 17. and 20. 25, 26. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense. But this is needful to be remembered, that this kind of holiness and sanctity by God's atonement, procured by their legal washings and sacrifices, must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by God's Spirit in our Regeneration; For this kind of holiness which we obtain by God's Reconciliation, Atonement, Pardon and forgiveness, may more fitly be called, The satisfaction of merit. For first, This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius; namely, it sets them by God's gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant, into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost, both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins, and in the moral sense by Adam's sin. Secondly, This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Atonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins, because in their understanding, God's atonement procured by their sin-offerings, and the purgation of sins by God's atonement is all one; and this very phrase of the Seventy, doth Paul apply to the merit of Christ's sin-offering, saying, by himself he made a purgation for our sins, Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly, On the day of Atonement, the High Priest made Atonement for all Israel, To cleanse them, that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord, Leu. 16. 30. Mark the phrase, Leu. 16. 30. He made Atonement for their cleansing; and how did he make Atonement for their cleansing? but by offering their public Sacrifices by which he procured God's Atonement, which did formally cleanse them, or sanctify them, or make them holy from the defilement of all thei● legal sins; for these legal terms are synonimous, and this did typify, That it is God's Reconciliation or Atonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ, that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins, and by which means only we are sanctified, Heb. 10. 10. or made holy, just, and righteous in God's sight, as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly, Saith the Apostle, in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure God's Atonement for the expiation of our moral sins; which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing, if ●he bloody combat of Christ in his sufferings, and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by God's voluntary, positive Law and Covenant, as the only means to cleanse and purify the conscience by procuring God's Atonement for all our moral sins, by the which will of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that God's atonement and forgiveness, is called sanctity and holiness to justification. For the selfsame gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb, for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts, Heb. 9 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant, by the death of Christ to sanctify or purify the polluted conscience from dead works, and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who offered himself by his eternal Spirit, purge your conscience from dead works? (and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver. 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctify, in ver. 13. and with the word sanctify in chap. 10. 10.) and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver. 14. (namely, both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person) he proves in ver. 15, 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death, and so by this kind of death, he got the victory over Principalities and Powers (that could not put him to death formally, though they had liberty to do their worst) and spoiled them (as a Col. 2. 15. Mark. 15. 39 victorious conqueror, because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage) triumphing over them in it, namely, in the priestly formality of his death on the cross, Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark. 15. 39 that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors (of which he had seen many to die) but that it was of a transcendent nature; and therefore with great admiration he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. Col. 1. 21, 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God, but the death of his flesh, and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul, as Mr. Norton saith? Fifthly, It is also evident by the New Testament, that God's Reconciliation or Atonement procured by the death of Christ, doth make believing sinners holy and righteous, as in Col. 1. 21, 22. You that were enemies, he hath now reconciled in the body of his fl●sh, through death, to present you holy and without blemish, and spotless in his sight (as Bro. reads it.) Hence it is evident, that God's Reconciliation, or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation, doth make a believing sinner not only without blemish, and spotless, but [holy] also: And so the word sanctify and cleanse in Ephes. 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy, and without blemish, in the same verse. Sixthly, I pray note this also, That the holiness of Christ's person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness (as it is affirmed by some) unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures, as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christ's Righteousness formally (saith he) is incommunicable to any other; our union with Christ (saith he) makes u● not the same person with him, to be the same subject of the same accident, Righteousness. This Section I have added only by way of Parenthesis. Seventhly, Seeing it is acknowledged that perfection doth consist in action; and seeing it is also acknowledged that the perfection of all Christ's obedience was to be evidenced, not only by his perfect patience in all his sufferings from his Combater, Satan, but especially in the formality of his death and sacrifice, why should it not be formally done by his own priestly action? And why then doth Mr. Norton detract so much from the perfection of his Priestly action, in the formality of his death and sacrifice, by ascribing the formality of it to physical causes only, as his words repeated a little before do testify? But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death than what i● inflicted justly for sin, etc. Reply 28. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should detract so much from the perfection of Christ's Priestly action in making his death to be a sacrifice, as to make it to be nothing else but a coacted death according to God's sentence denounced on fallen Adam, as the punishment of his original sin in Gen. 3. 19 For as Lupset saith well, In our death, the body doth in a manner leave the soul, before the soul leaveth the body, For (saith he) it is the body by itself, forsaking life, that causeth the soul to departed. Hence I infer, What perfection of Christ's Priestly active obedience can there be in such a kind of forced death, as this is? But on the other hand, look upon the death of Christ as it was to be made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power, and then we may see it to be a death of Covenant only, and so consequently to be an active mediatorial death and sacrifice, because he must be our Mediator in his death. But in Reply 16. I have spoken more fully to this objection. Therefore for a conclusion, I will yet once more distinguish upon the death of Christ. 1 The long action of his bloody combat with Satan and his Instruments gave the name to his being killed and slain. 2 His last short act in breathing out, sending out, or putting out his immortal spirit, when he cried with a loud voice, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, gave the name of formality to his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power. When Christ said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, Luk. 23. 46. he did not breath out his soul through the decay of his natural spirits, as the Saints do, when they say the same words, as in Psal. 31. 5. Nor as Stephen did, when he said Lord Jesus receive Psa. 31. 5. my spirit, Act. 7. 59 For their death is coacted by God's Justice on original sin, Gen. 3. 19 But Christ made it evident that his death was not coacted by weakness of Nature, by his crying out with a loud voice, when he said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, and at that instant gave up the Ghost; by which loud outcry he made it evident that he was in full strength of nature when he died, as it is noted before by Mr. White of Dorchester, and by Mr. Trap and others, and this last act gave the formality. 1 To his Obedience. 2 To his Death and Sacrifice. 3 To the price of full satisfaction. For as I have formerly showed from Exod. 30. 12. It was Gods voluntary Covenant that Exod. 30. 12, 15, 16. The death of Christ as it was made a sacrifice of reconciliation by the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity, was the full price of man's redemption. made the half shekels to be the full price, for the redemption of the lives of the Israelites; and this price was employed (or part of it at least) to buy public Sacrifices, which were ordained to make an Atonement for their lives (as I have opened it in the Dialogue p. 86.) namely, this price was accounted by God to be in the place, and in the stead of their lives, as vers. 15, and 16. doth declare: And thus their lives were redeemed with a price, and yet materially it was not the full price of their lives, but formally it was the full price of their lives, by virtue of God's free Covenant. In like sort God's voluntary Covenant and Decree, made the obedience of Christ in his Combat of sufferings, and in the formality of his death and sacrifice, to be the full price of the redemption of all the elect Israel of God, namely, in their place and stead. But saith Mr. Norton in page 143. No price can dispense in case of the Antitype. Reply 29. And why not? Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice? Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth? The Lord in mercy open his eyes, and all our eyes to see better into the force of God's voluntary Covenant, for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant, that doth make any thing to be a full formal price in his own sight; and on the contrary, that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes, can be made a full price formally in his esteem, without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant, doth concur thereto. Conclusions from my several Replies to the said third Question. 1 Hence it follows, That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of his death on the Cross, namely, he did not so forsake him, as to suffer his humane nature to be put to death formally by the power of Satan's torturing pains, neither did he appoint his death to be made a sacrifice by his own immediate wrath, but only by Christ's own Priestly power. 2 Hence it follows, That the death of Christ in the formality of it, was accepted of God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Reconciliation, by which his wrath was appeased, and his favour procured to all poor humbled and believing sinners; he was the Mediator of the New Testament through his death, because he completed the same as our Mediatorial Priest by the joint concurrence of both his natures in personal union, and in that respect, he is denominated to be the Mediator of the New Testament, through that transcendent kind of death, Heb. 9 14, 15, 16. A brief Reply to Mr. Nortons' Charge of Heresy; For out of his Heterodoxal Tenants, he doth charge Heresy upon the Dialogue. 1 For denying the Imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ, and his suffering the punishment due thereunto, contrary to 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. Isa. 53. 5, 6. Reply THe Dialogue doth indeed deny the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ, in that new upstart formal legal manner (by imputing sin, and inflicting punishments after the manner of the proceed of legal Courts of Justice) as Mr. Norton holds: But it doth not deny but approve of the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ, in the sense of the Ancient Divines, and in the sense of Mr. Wotton (for in this point of Imputation, Mr. Wotton follows the sense of the Ancient Divines, and the Dialogue doth approve and follow Mr. Wotton's sense (as I have showed in Chap. 14.) whose memory will be blessed where the truth prevails in this point; namely, That Christ bore our sins in his body on the Tree, as the Dialogue hath rightly expounded, 1 Pet. 2. 24. namely, our punishments (as our voluntary combating Surety against Satan) according to God's Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. Luke 1. 74. Heb. 2. 14, 15. 1 Joh. 3. 8. and not as our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant of works, as Mr. Norton holds. 2 As for the several Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his corrupt sense, I have expounded them in their right sense, with the concurrence of several Orthodox Writers. Therefore you may see that he hath wrested the sense of the blessed Scriptures to prove his corrupt Tenent; therefore his charge of Heresy is but a paper shot, and a deep Charge of Error may justly be retorted. And whereas he hath published another book called, The Orthodox Evangelist, wherein he hath asserted the same Tenants upon the same grounds that he hath done in his Answer to the Dialogue: This Reply which I have made in this Book, will serve to prove, that the said high Title, is an erroneous and misleading Title, and therefore it will advise the Reader to search better into the truth. His second Charge of Heresy runs thus: For denying that Christ as God-man, Mediator, obeyed the Law, and therewith, that he obeyed it for us as our Surety, contrary to Gal. 4. 4, 5. Mat. 5. 17, 18. Heb. 10. 7. compared with Psal. 40. 7. 8. and Rom. 3. 31. Reply. I have Re-vindicated all these Scriptures from his unsound sense, and expounded them in a right sense, with the concurrence and approbation of the Orthodox in Chap. 3. and elsewhere, and therefore this charge of Heresy doth also vanish as a mist before the Sun. His third Charge of Heresy runs thus: For denying the Imputation of Christ's obedience unto Justification, contrary to Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. 19 and Phi. 3. 9 Reply. I have also fully Re-vindicated these Scriptures from his unsound sense, and given the Reader the true sense, and so this charge of Heresy may more justly be retorted to the giver thereof; For the Curse that is causeless, shall not come on the innocent, Prov. 26. 2. But it will return to the giver thereof, according to Psal. 109. 17, 31. 2 By the Table of chief Heads, and by the Table of Scriptures annexed, the Reader may please to search out the several pages where the said several Scriptures are Re-vindicated from Mr. Nortons' false glosses, and there he shall find the genuine sense of them clearly discovered. 3 Hence the five Divines that subscribed the Letter a● the end of Mr. Nortons' Book, may see their great unadvisedness in joining with Mr. Norton, to condemn the precious truth of the blessed Scriptures, for Heresy, and to approve of his perverted sense. 4 I will now conclude with a reference to Leu. 4. 13, 14. where a Church, a Synod, and a Court of Elders and Magistrates, may see that they are sometimes subject to Error in the things of God, and therefore they, as well as persons of a lower capacity, had need to watch and pray, and to study daily, and earnestly, that God would guide their judgements unto the sound understanding, and righteous preserving of the truth of his blessed Scriptures. Amen. The Wise will understand, Dan. 12. 10. Austin Cont. Faust. saith, I pass not for the censures of such as dare to reprehend, what they do not Comprehend. FINIS. Errata. Reader, Take notice that the first Figures stands for the Page, and the second for the Line. Page 23, line 23 blot out Now it remains to be expounded, 40, 11 r. granted, 40, 16 r. sinning. 50, 10 r. by the Ordinances. 95, 25 r. affect. 113, 14 r. Naboth. 118, 10 r. Wotton. 130, 28 blot out Herald 145, 10 for 25 r. 103. 148, 10 r. this, 161, 18 r. obrogate. ibid. 22 r. that he shall not have ib. 25 r. Wotton. 164, 10 r. this 175, 17 r. to act according to Physical causes in his moral obedience and natural actions, as the Dialogue doth reason in p. 111. l 31, and as it is opened in c. 17. Rep. 11, & in c. 3. 176, 26. for Psal. r. page. 178, 33 r. Is. 53. 5, 10. 186, 81 c 6. 192, 8 r. 152, 153, etc. 193, 19 blot out made, 196, 38 r. Goat Bucks. 206, ult r. patience and obedience. 21, 11 r. saith he, 223, 16 r. Wotton. 232 from this page for 9 pages together, is false paged, make all these 9 pages 233. & then the pages following are right. 234, 16 r p. 119 238, 32 r. statute. 141, 29 r. disposition, and Rutherfurd on the Covenant doth at large concur with Mr. Ball 243, 4 r. chief. 248, 13 blot out but, & r. and yet not be one person. 252, 13 r. this phrase of the Septuagint, the Apostle, etc. 252, 15 after fully purged, add compare herewith also Heb. 9 22, 23. 258, 23 r. Christ's body. 259. 35 blot out, it is in the same verses, r. the word Atonement is also explained by etc. 263, 38. r. both of his sufferings, and of his death and sacrifice. 266, 2 r. his Argument. 273. 28. blot out And r. The only reason. 275. 11 r. was to cover and hid. 275, 28 r. themselves to Baal peor 282, 19 r. groundless fantasies. 295, 15. for disease r. curse of evil 299, 31 r. distaste. 307, 13 r. alone. 309, 9 r. this last Priestly act of his death. 311, ●7 r propounded. 323, 26 r. Ekthambe●sthai, and so in p. 324, 327: 323, 1 r. to the last gasp; seeing he had got a confirmation against his sorrows by his prayers in the Garden, 326, 25 r. but Christ's perfections could not be disturbed with that disorderly hasty fear, as they were in 2 King. 7. 15. 335, 25 add thus, 339, 21 r. Consecrator, 344. 31 r. Joh. 10. 11. 345, 12 r. usage, 362, 5 r. propounded, 363, 14 r. patients, 368, 17, blot out which, 371, in the Marginal note, r. Azab hath not two, 373, 39 r. Exod. 23 5. 385, 39 r. tried, 386, 26 r. against me, 395, 6 r. because he ha●h not hid, 415, 2 blot out to, 427, 20. r. derided by, ib. 37 r. therefore, 428, 28 r. else, 430, 29 r. thing, 432, 34 r. sanctification of merit, but not that of the Spirit. Other faults there be which the Reader may mend.