SECTION 1.

SECTION 2.
The Examination of Lev. 18. 5.

I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove, That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience, or disobe­dience, to the moral Law of Nature, and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17.

Reply. First, I will examine Lev. 18. 5. (This do, and thou shalt live) whether it have his sense or no; for he makes high ac­count [Page 18] of this Scripture for his purpose, because he doth often cite it, as in page 14, 140. 149, 189, 191, 225. &c.

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 Lev. 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 exactnesse, 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 then this, If ye will obey my voyce, and do my Commandements, 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 shew 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 fulfill the Law to be justified by their works, but of them that soundly 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 shews abundantly in page 102. 130, 135, 166, 178. &c.

3 Mr. Burges saith thus, Paul describeth the righteousnesse 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 Lev. 18. 5. But saith he, [Page 19] We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse 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 shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace, in page 229. &c. 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 cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned 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, cites this Rule from Luther; Pre­cepts (saith Luther) presuppose faith, as where it is written, Keep the Commandements, that is by Christ, or by faith in Christ; also, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. 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 Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food, so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evan­gelical keeping of Gods Commandements.

9 The true sense of Lev. 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 cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes, 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, Lev. 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.

[Page 20] 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 Boothes, Deut. 16. 13.

Do Sacrifice, Exod. 10. 25. 1 King. 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18.

Do thy Sin, That is, Do thy Sin-offerings, Lev. 9. 7, 22. Lev. 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 evill, because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith.

So that Gods 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 beleeveth 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 beleeve on him whom he hath sent, vers. 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30, 31. and therefore beleeving 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 Lev. 18. 5. is to be un­detstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant [Page 21] 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. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by.

2 Reply. If Mr. Norton had proved as well, as affirmed, that God Adams obedi­ence to the moral Law of nature, was con-natural to­him, and ther­fore it was not ordained to merit life by. had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by, then he had hit the nail upon the head; but his proofs hitherto have failed, and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it.

True it is (saith Mr. Ball page 133.) that the promises run upon this condition, If ye obey my Voyce, and do my Commande­ments.

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 civill 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 shewed 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 Commandements 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 Lev. 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.

[Page 22] 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 compleat 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 beleeve, to repent, and to yeeld sub­jection to Christ, as the Decalogue doth (as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis) neither doth the Law of na­ture forbid sins against the Gospel, as unbeleef, impenitency, and contempt of grace, as the Decalogue doth; neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day, as the Decalogue doth: All these things are added by the Co­venant of grace to the Decalogue, more then was in the moral Law of nature.

Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for sub­stance with the first Covenant, neither in respect of justification, nor in respect of sanctified walking.

SECT. 3.
The Examination of Gen. 2. 17.

THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton, to prove that the most principal death there threatned (for the breach of the first Covenant of works) was eternal death in hell, and saith he, in his first Proposition, Christ (as the Surety of the Elect) suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice, thereby exactly fulfilling the first Co­venant. In his second Proposition, he saith, That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice. In his third Pro­position he calls it Relative Justice. In his sixth Proposition, he calls it, The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man. In his eighth Proposition, he saith, That God having constituted that in­violable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid, in re­spect of his power now limited, to proceed by this Rule, namely, first, According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obe­dience; or secondly, according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience.

We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant; First, by opening the true na­ture of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly, by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5.

Now it remains to expound.

Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained. And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice, for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption.

1 Reply. Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, Thou shalt dye the death.

The true nature of this death, I make to be a spiritual death in sin only.

This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text.

• [Page 24]1 By the adjunct of time; In the day, or at what time so­ever.
  The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circum­stances to our spiritual death in sin only, and therefore that death is the essential curse there threat­ned; and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Cove­nant, to bear that death that is there threatned.
• 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned, to the kind of life that was promised.

First, No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed, but a spiritual death in sin only. And therefore first, no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly, it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threat­ned in this Text, because said he, There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii, subject to death.

But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him, The words of the Text, in Dying, thou shalt dye, seem to imply an actuall death, which they should then suffer, and not a poten­tial only.

Secondly, I answer further, that if a bodily death were there only meant, or chiefly meant, as others say, then where shall we find any other Text besides this, wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned? surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin, but this Text only, neither was spiritual death executed at any other time, but at this time only; It was but once threatned, nor but once ex­ecuted, and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating; therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17.

2 The true nature of this death may the better be dis­cerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin; whether it was a sin against the moral Law, or against a positive Law only,

1 I have already shewed, That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature; and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law.

2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person, for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned.

3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indiffe­rent in their own nature; and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of any outward [Page 25] positive Law, but at first a spiritual death in sin, and ever after a bodily death only; but yet for want of faith in Christ, eter­nal death will follow after a bodily death.

4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general, because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature, as he was the head of mans nature in general, as I have shewed in Sect. 1.

If his sin had been a moral sin only, then he had been ob­liged to the punishment of the moral Law; but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin, to make their nature in themselves, and in their posterity, more sinful then it was by Adams sin; for by Adams sin, all are alike sinners (in the same degree) of originall sin.

Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law, unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law, which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning; and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this, a bodily death only is often expresly threatned.

Bucanus propounds this Question; If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place. original Righteousnesse, should it have been derived to all his posterity?

It should (saith he) First, because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature, and not the righteousnesse of a private person. Secondly, (saith he) because the contrary to it, namely ori­ginal sin, was derived by Adams means to all his posterity (Christ only excepted.) Thirdly, (saith he) because every like begets his like in nature and kind.

And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place, The first The first Co­venant was made in rela­tion to mans nature in ge­neral, and not with Adam as a 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 mans nature which origi­nally and naturally was in his loyns: 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 dye.

And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus, As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children; so neither [Page 26] were all Adams sins propagated to posterity, but only the first; between which, and his other sins, there was this difference, That by the first, the goodnesse of mans nature was lost, And by the other, the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away.

1 Hence it follows, that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person, as it was against mans nature in ge­neral (for it was against the Covenant that God made with him, touching mans nature in general, he being the head of mans nature) therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams 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 then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inflicted on Adams nature for his sinfull 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 threatned, and formally exe­cuted on mans nature in general, at the instant of Adams 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 dye by the separation of their soul from their body; So then it follows by good consequence, that neither a bodily death, nor eternal death in hell, was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general, at the instant of Adams sinning, but a spiritual death in sin onely. And Dr. Willet saith, That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer, and not a poten­tial only; not that Adams soul (saith Mr. Perkins) was now utterly abolished, but because it was as though it were not, [Page 27] and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse 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 threatned to be meant only of death in sin, is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised, to the death here threatned.

Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant, was the confirmation, and the continuance of his created natural per­fections, The life pro­mised to Adam a [...]d so to mans 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 duall 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 beleeve is the truth: and thence it fol­lows by way of opposition thereto, that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only, and not of any other death, till another death was threatned 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 threatning, 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 eternall 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 [Page 28] instant of Adams sinful eating, execute on him this spiritual death of sin; yet it pleased God also in a short time after, to Relax the rigor and outrage of this spiritual death to, all mankind in general in this life. All the glory of Gods c [...]ea­tion had been confounded at the time of Adams fall, if Christ had not been fore­or [...]ained 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 Adams fall, take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation, now in rebellion and confusion by Adams 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 mans corruption, and Sathans malice; or else if Christ had not been provided in Gods eternal Counsel and Provi­dence, in a readinesse 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 mans spiritual death in sin, and Sathans malice, if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government.

And secondly, It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin, to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam, and all his elect poste­rity from this desperate Head-plot of Sathan, and from this miserable death of sin, thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure; or else if God in his eter­nal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence, there had been no room left for the manifesta­tion of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed; for till the time of Gods gracious manifestation, Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of Gods vin­dicative threatning; but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him there-from; for God said thus by way of threatning to the devil, The Seed of that Woman (whom thou hast deceived) shall break thy Head-plot by his death and sacrifice, and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it; And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin, thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to peirce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor, Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience, that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his pa­tience, [Page 29] nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice, and by this means shall thy cunning Head-plot be broken in peeces, and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken.

Now to bring this work of Redemption to passe, a double change must be wrought in fallen man, by the Mediation of this Promised Seed.

• 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration.
• 2 A change of our present state, from being the children of wrath by nature, to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption.

1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration.

1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good (which is done but in part whiles we live in this world) through the Word and Spirit; For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God, Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration, as I said, is done but in part, for as long as we live in this world, this body of sin doth still in part remain, and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here.

2 The full degree of our Regeneration, is not till the day of the general Resurrection, and then all those that have been in part regenerated here, shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here, to fit them for that full Re­generation; for without such a change of our corrupt na­ture by death, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit incorruption, 1▪ Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect (saith Christopher Carlisle) the Resurrection is called by Christ, A Regeneration, a new Birth, a Renovation, a In his Trea­tise of Christs descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead, a Restitution from above, Matth. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate, and in part sanctified here, must suffer a bodily death, that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body, as well as in soul, and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, 1 Cor. 15▪ 53. Ph. 3. 21.

[Page 30] Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in or­daining a bodily death; for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after, namely, in vers. 19. which is but four verses after the pro­mise, tell beleeving Adam (as he was the head of mans cor­rupt nature in general) Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return; And thus from the order of time when this threatning was de­nounced, It follows,

1 That a bodily death was not denounced, untill after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break the Devils Head-plot (by purchasing a new Nature, and a new Paradise for Adam, and as many else of his posterity as did beleeve in the Promised Seed) but this threatning of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and dye in the unbeleef of the Pro­mised Seed; for when God did first appoint a bodily death, he did then also appoint a day of Judgement, as Heb. 9. 27. doth expound the threatning in Gen. 3. 19.

2 This is also worthy of all due consideration; That this bodily death was not threatned to be formally executed in the day of Adams sinful eating, as death in sin was.

3 Neither was a bodily death threatned to be formally ex­ecuted on any certain day afterwards.

4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death, as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death, after this time; but upon the committing of such and such sins, he did still from time to time threaten, a bodily death: But after the first threatning of a spiritual death in sin, God did never threaten that death any more; he did but once threaten that death, and but once exe­cute it.

5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to beleeving Adam he adjudged him and all his beleeving poste­rity no further then their bodies to the earth, whence Christ should one day raise them, and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption; but he adjudged his un­beleeving seed, not only to a bodily, but also to an eternal death in hell.

6 From this appoinment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. and not from that death in Gen. 2. 17. must all the Scriptures [Page 31] have reference that speak of a bodily death.

7 Hence it is evident, that bodily death was not at first threat­ned in Gen. 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin, but as an immediate effect and punishment of original sin: and this Rom. 5. 12. 14. is further evident by Rom. 5. 12. As by one man (namely by one mans disobedience, as it is explained in verse 19.) sin entred into the world (namely original sin) and death by sin (namely a bodily death by original sin.)

And the matter is yet more plain by vers. 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses, over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams trangression; that is to say, Death reigned over Infants from Adam to Moses for their original sin, before ever they had sinned actually after the similitude of Adams Transgression; and saith Paul in vers. 21. Sin (name­ly original sin) reigned unto death: Hence it follows, that the wages of Adams first sin was death in sin, and the wages of his original sin was a bodily death only to beleevers, and eternal death to all unbeleevers, Rom. 6. 23.

And it is evident, that this is an ancient orthodox Tenet, that bodily death did first enter into the world by original sin.

Fulgentius de incar. & gratia Christi, ch. 12. saith, Except the death of the soul had gone before by sin, the death of the body had never followed after as a punishment; and saith he in Chap. 13. Our flesh is born with the punishment of death and the pollution of sin; and of young children he saith, By what justice is an infant subjected to the wages of sin; if there be no uncleannesse of sin in him?

And saith Prosper, de promiss, & pr [...]dict. part. 1. c. 5. The pu­nishment of sin which Adam the root of mankind received by Gods sentence (saying, Earth thou art, and to earth thou shalt re­turn, Gen. 3. 19.) and transmitted to his posterity as to his branches, the Apostle saith entred into the world by one mans sin, and so ranged over all men.

And Origen as I find him cited by Dr. Willet saith, You may call the corporal death a shadow of the other (namely a sha­dow See Dr. Willet in. Rom. 5. Quest. 21. of our spiritual death in sin) that wheresoever that in­vadeth, the other doth also necessarily follow.

And Theoph [...]lus Reason doth conclude as much: By the sin [Page 32] of Adam (saith he) sin and death invaded the world; namely by Adams first sin, original sin invaded the world, and then bodily death invaded the world by means of original sin.

And saith Peter Martyr, It is much to be marvelled at, how P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. the Pelagians can deny original sin in Infants, seeing they see they daily dye.

And saith Maxentius in libello fidei c. 3. We beleeve that not onely the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but also that the sting of death, which is sin, entred into the world, and the Apostle testifieth that sin and death went over all men.

And saith Bullenger in Decad. 3. Ser. 3. By disobedience sin entred into the world, and by sin death, diseases, and all the mischiefes in the world.

Many other Orthodox Writers do confirm this for a cleer truth, That God inflicted bodily death on mans nature in ge­neral as a punishment of original sin; now if it were inflicted on man as a punishment of original sin, then it was not threatned as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in Gen. [...]. 17.

And the Hebrew Doctors, as well as Christian Writers, understand the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. of death in sin, and they make bodily death to be the immediate effect of it.

1 By the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Rabby Moses Ben Mamony understandeth a spiritual death, that is to say, the See Dupless is in the Truenesse of Religion [...]h. 27. death of the soul wounded with sin, and so forsaken of her life, which is God.

And other Hebrew Doctors say that bodily death is the effect of original sin, Unto this world (say the Hebrew Rabbins cited by Ains. in Gen. 3. 19.) there cleaveth the secret filthinesse of the Serpent which came upon Eve; and because of that filthi­nesse death is come upon Adam and his seed.

And saith Ainsworth in Gen. 3. 15. The mystery of original sin, and thereby death over all, and of deliverance by Christ, Rab. Menachem on Lev. 25. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words; So long as the spirit of uncleannesse is not taken away out of the world, the souls that come down into this world must needs dye, for to root out the power of uncleannesse out of the world, and to consume the same; and all this is [Page 33] because of the Decree which was decreed for the uncleannesse and filthinesse which the Serpent brought upon Eve.

From these Testimonies it is evident that the ancient He­brew Doctors held bodily death to be the immediate effect of original sin; and they held original sin to be a spiritual death, and to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin.

Chrysostome also saith, We dye a double death, therefore we Chrys. against Drunkards and of the Resur­rection. must look for a double resurrection; Christ dyed but one kind of death, therefore he rose but one kind of resurrection; Adam (saith he) dyed body and soul, First, he dyed to sin; And secondly, to nature: In what day soever ye eat of the Tree (said God) ye shall dye the death; that very day did not Adam dye in which he did eat, but he then dyed to sin, and long after to na­ture: The first is the death of the soul; the other the death of the body; for the death of the soul is sin, or everlasting punish­ment. To us men there is a double death, and therefore we must have a double resurrection: To Christ there was but one kind of death, for he sinned not, and that one kind of death was for us; he owed no kind of death, for he was not subject to sin, and so not to death.

In these words we see that Chrysostome held that Adam first dyed to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly, to nature, long after his death in sin.

This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true sub­stance in the Dialogue in page 10. &c. and from that Exposi­tion, I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead, for our redemption; and if this Exposition which I have now inlarged be sound, and ac­cording to the Context, as I beleeve it is, then the inference that I made is right and good.

But I confesse that upon the receit of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition, I was much staggered; for, as I remember he demanded this question. By whose means was it that Adam dyed this spiritual death; was it inflicted on him by God, or rather did he not pull it upon himself?

This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he, is no other then if it were said, whensoever thou dost wickedly, thou shalt become wicked; for what is it else to be spiritually dead, but to be [Page 34] devoid of goodnesse? or whensoever thou killest thy self, thou shalt be dead; besides (saith he) it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse, and so to make it unholy, unrighteous, wicked, evill.

These considerations, I confesse, did amuse me at the present, my conscience, I blesse God, being tender of truth, and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary, I durst not oppose it, and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced.

But since then, I blesse God, I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right: Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death; and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query, Whether Adam cast away Gods Image, or whether God took it away from him, in his Aphorismes, page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold, that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, he dyed spiritually by being forsaken of God, in regard of holinesse, as well as in regard of comfort; and so he was deprived of the chief part of Gods Image; but so was not Christ, saith he.

And I was the more inlightned 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 Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect according to Gods eternal counsel are re­deemed from it by Christ.

Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natu­ral effect of Adams 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 straitway say that God is the cause of sin; for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned, straitway 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 Adams perfections were created to be but mutable, untill he should [Page 35] take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life, and therefore they were but lent him for a triall; for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill, he should dye 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 no 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, then 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 Adams nature, for his disobedience against his po­sitive command, as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command?

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 shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant did not stand in Adams 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 dye, was not from the moral Law, but from a positive Law only.

[Page 42] Reply 2. Mr. Norton doth also contradict himself touching the quality or kind of Christs obedience; For first, he saith, It The kind of Christs obedi­ence as Media­tor, was to a peculiar posi­tive law. But Mr. Norton doth 1 affi [...]m that the quality or kind of Christs 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 then Legal obedi­ence, then 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 Christs obedience as Mediator, was more then 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 then 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 Christs satisfaction, while he is thus confounded in the nature of Christs obedience as Mediator.

SECT. 2.

In page 140. He calls the Dialogues distinction of Christs 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 erronious, and mis-leading distinction.

Reply. WHether Mr. Norton will own this distinction or no, the matter will be the lesse with a judicious Reader, because it hath the approbation of many eminent [Page 43] 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 then the Angels; seeing every rational creature in the very name of its creation, ows 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 righ­teousnesse De Justitiâ Christi activâ & passivâ, p. 101, 102. and in his Epist. to Whitgenstenius. unto Christs active obedience, or to his native ho­linesse, 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, [Page 44] 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 Heretick as well as Mr. Wotton? The same question do I propound to Mr. Norton, together with that crosse 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 M [...]diator) 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 Commande­ments, 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 Christs 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 righteousnesse of his person, the other Justitia meriti, the righteousness of merit; and for this distinction, Christs obedi­ence to the moral Law, is called by Di­vines, Justitia personae; but his obedience in his death and suf­ferings, they call Justitia meriti▪ he cites 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 Apologie to Mr. Blake, p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law, yea and a Law peculiar to himself, [Page 45] 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 speciall use &c.

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 Christs 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 Saviours 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 shewed 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 Christs obedience in his death was legal obedi­ence, contrary to Mr. Norton.

2 I will adde 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 dye, nor that any should dye 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 then that which Adam lost.

And saith Mr. Ball, Christ upon the Crosse 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 fulfill all Righteousnesse, [Page 46] 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 Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee 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 vertue of the hypostatical union (which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law) but by vertue of a particular Command, Constitution, and De­signation to that service of laying down his life. This Comman­dement 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 hee 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 wee are sanctified through the oblation of his body, &c.

That Will (saith he) is the Stipulation (or Covenant) of the Father about Christs 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, then not by his obedience to the moral Law.

5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law, then his desire, That the Cup might passe 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 dye, 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 [Page 47] 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 hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarna­tion to be moral obedience, or else he would never say, as hee If the Incar­nation of Christ had been an act of obedience to the moral Law, then Christs God-head had been in an ab­solute inferio­rity to his Fa­thers 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 God-head, was an act of his obedience to the moral Law; then it follows, that the God-head 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 wee 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 bee 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 fulnesse 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, [Page 48] therefore it comes not here to bee handled (namely not in Mr. Nortons sense) for Mr. Norton saith, That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject, is the Law whereunto wee 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 onely; 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 fulnesse of time was come: This fulnesse of time, must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death, though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation, namely in order to his death; for untill that full time of Christs 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 before-hand, 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 fulnesse 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 Trespasse-offerings) and to end Sins See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw. (namely, to end Sin-offerings) and to make reconciliation for Ʋn­righteousnesse, and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse, instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications, and by le­gal Reconciliations and Attonements 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 Righteous­nesse 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 fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father) had a true vertue and efficacie, by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator, to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins, and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse, and so then the ceremonial [Page 49] Righteousnesse must cease; and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel, that the Messiah by his death should make reconci­liation for unrighteousnesse, and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse; 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 likenesse of sinful flesh, and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh, Hee 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 Righteousnesse. And thus in the fulnesse of time, God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types, and then it follows, that all Ceremonial Types must cease, &c. 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 Purifyings did ty­pifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs 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 Righteousnesse, 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 j [...]stification; 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 [Page 50] 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 Gods Sanctuary, and were guilty of cutting off by death, Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19. 13. so then, their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins, the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law, was but to typifie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time, as the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse, 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 forgivenesse. And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall bee clean; from all your filthinesse, 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 fulnesse 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 Fathers Attonement, which doth formally expiate sin, cleanse it, purge it, and wash it away. See Ains. in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 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 bee 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.

[Page 51] 3 Made of a woman; For according to Gen. 3, 15. Hee 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 hee could not redeem any from the bondage of Moses Rites, untill hee had fulfilled all the Types, by his own blessed death and sacrifice, in the fulnesse 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 Sathans Head-plot.

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 hee 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 Sathans Head-plot.

And thus we may see, that the Types of the ceremonial Law, The ceremo­nial Types of cleansing, espe­cially of Priest and Sacrifice, did typifie our moral justifi­cation or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacri­fice in procu­ring Gods At­tonement. Heb 9. 13. especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice, were ordained to typifie 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 mans redemption, let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies; for in them as in a glasse they may be­hold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption; and therefore when Christ came into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest 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 meerly Ceremonial, the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordi­nance, [Page 52] 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 High-priest 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 High-priest and his sacrifice united personally, as vers. 14. How much more, &c. 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 High-priest and Sacrifice, did comprise the act of one Mediator, for so saith the Text, he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit, namely by his God-head, and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament, vers. 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin.

And secondly, hence it had vertue 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 lyes 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 fulnesse 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 fulnesse 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 Sathans Head-plot; or as it is in vers. 24. By his death, He shall finish Trespasse-offering, and end Sin-offerings, and so make reconcilia­tion for unrighteousnesse, and bring in an everlasting Righteousnesse; [Page 53] for he shall confirm unto us all the Legacies of the New Testa­ment, by his death, where the Spirit for regeneration, and for­givenesse of sin for Justification, are the general Legacies.

Thus have I shewed (though not so compendiously as I could wish) that the word Law, in Gal. 4. 4. must bee under­stood of the ceremonial Law only; And therefore first, All that Mr. Norton saith touching Christs 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 Heresie 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 shal 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 grosly 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 Christs legal obedience, as our obedience (then hee had shewed his skill) and then it had indeed been meritorious, and of such value and sufficiency; But because hee doth but barely affirm it, therefore I shall passe it by without any fur­ther examination here, because I have shewed 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 shew, when I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17.

SECT. 1.

Reply 1. THis Distinction hee takes for granted; for hee shews 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 then 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, hee puts the Reader off with this [Page 55] 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 hide 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 bee 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 bee performed The natural order of pro­ceedings in Courts of justice is not fit to exempli­fie the order of proceedings in voluntary causes and Covenants. from the voluntary cause, being founded in Gods 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 exemplifie all this from the natural order of Court-justice: It is all one as if he should ex­emplifie 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 savors too much of prying into the secrets of God, contrary to Deut. 20. 29. and of too much boldnesse in giving a reason of Gods 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 Christs sufferings (as his marginal Note [Page 56] shews.) But the self-same Dr. Ames in his Marrow, lib. 1. c. 16. Sect. 4. 7, 9. doth expresse himself to bee of another mind touch­ing Eternity is essential to the Torments of H [...]ll. the Eternity of Hell-torments; hee doth there make the Eternity of duration to be as Essential as the Extremity of pain, both in respect of losse and sense; and in Sect. 5. hee renders three Reasons of this Eternity.

• 1 Because of the eternal abiding of the Offence.
• 2 Because of the unchangeablenesse 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 hee is pinched to answer Bellarmines Argument, and then you may finde him not well to accord with him­self.

Yea Mr. Norton himself gives another reason of the duration of Hell punishments, besides inability to satisfie sooner.

The reason (saith he) why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body, is chiefly, 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 adde, 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, th [...]reby to make Etern [...]ty no more but a circumstance, hath four in­conveniences attending it.

This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments, whereby hee labours to make Eternity to bee 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 onely 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 bee taken away from Hell-torments, then Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it.

[Page 57] 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 Gods good pleasure, as the due reward of sin.

Mr. Sam. Hieron saith, That the extremity of Hell-terments are made known to us two wayes. 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 Hee dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part; hee saith, That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body, but not in full extremity; and therefore hee saith, what he wanted in his body, hee made it up in his soul­torments, in page 121.

2 Hee 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 Hang-man strangling, the Hell-hounds 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 Losse.

Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Losse, Mr. Norton is like to lose himself, for hee delivers himself variously, and contrariously, as may bee seen by comparing his ex­pression [Page 58] in this place, with his various expressions in other places.

In page 31. line 5. Hee 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 losse 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. Hee 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 Crosse.

In page 111. (he saith) That the pain of Losse is the not en­joying of ought 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 hee bee to bee 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. Hee 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, Wee 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 bee 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 bee, 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, then 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 losse doth [Page 59] 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 wee suppose him to be godly.

This Essential punishment (saith hee 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 bee damned.

And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threat­ned Gen 2. 17. in Gen. 2. 17. to bee 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. Hee calls it his total desertion in respect of sense upon the Crosse; and presently after he saith, The pain of losse, 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 Crosse. Mark this, Hee doth in both these places hold, that Christ suffered the full measure of the pain of losse.

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 Losse.

Mark, that in this place hee holds only a partial forsaking.

And in page 80. Hee saith, That Christ was forsaken penally, yet partially and temporally, not totally and finally. Here also hee doth hold no more but a partial forsaking, and denies total.

[Page 60] And in page 118. Hee 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. Hee 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. Hee 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 hee denieth that he had any sense of the good of the promise.

Now let the Reader judge, whether hee can easily gather ou [...] of these various and uncertain expressions, what Mr. Norton doth distinctly affirm touching the pain of Losse, 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 hee doth limit his sufferings to the sense of the favour of God as in page 118. another while hee saith that hee was separated from all participation of the good of the pro­mise, in page 123. In this last speech hee 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 al participation of the good of the promise for a time, and so he comes up to Christs to­tal separation from God for a time. away the support of Gods Spirit to bear the pain of losse, 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 then a partial, which hee frequently de­nied in the places above cited, and comes up to a real separa­tion, [Page 61] 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 cites 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, then 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; hee told his Disciples that when the Shepherd was smitten, they should bee scattered, Matth. 26. 31. Yea said Christ, Joh. 16. 32. The hour is now come that yee shall bee scattered, and yee 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 losse, Sometimes Mr. Norton makes the pain of losse 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 hee holds that Christ suffered no more in the point of the pain of losse, 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 controversie that Christ had communion with God in other things, although Mr. Nortons supposition were true, that hee was deprived of the sense of his favour.

The Judicious Reader will soon perceive that the pain of losse in the essentials of it, must needs produce greater suffe­rings then only the losse of the sense of Gods favour for a time, and Mr. Norton himself doth acknowledge as much in page 113. The pain of losse (saith he) consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God; The Reprobates, whether men or devils, are alwayes hated of God, &c. And secondly, saith Dr. Ames, Privation is the losse of an infinite good. And thirdly, These Scriptures rightly expounded, will put more [Page 62] misery on the pain of losse (taken essentially) then onely 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 losse was onely the losse of the sense of the favour of God for a time; if his sufferings were no more then so, then it is evident, that God, in the course of his ordinary dispensation, doth suffer many of his children in this life to bee wholly bereft of the sense of his favour for a time: Therefore in this case, what need is there that Mr. Norton should flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation, except hee think that the pain of sense, over and above the pain of losse, could not bee suffered without an ex­traordinary dispensation?

According to Gods ordinary dispensation, hee 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 Gods ordinary dispensation the Saints have suf­fered the pains of Sheol.

Now let the Reader judge what a refuge hee is forced to flye unto to support his grand Maxim; and how far he yeelds the case unto the Dialogue, seeing hee cannot maintain what hee would maintain, but by Gods extraordinary dispensation.

It is a poor peece of Divinity to maintain that for the only truth, and to condemn the contrary for damnable Heresie, and yet have no better proof to flye unto for the support of it, than Gods extraordinary dispensation.

Out of all doubt Purgatory, and the Miracles that are in the legend of Saints may passe for current truth, if they may but flye to Gods 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 penall evill thereof, and befals 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 passe 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, &c.

Reply 1 THe Reader may please to take notice that (except Mr. Norton intend more under this unlimited word &c.) here is instanced only such penal evils as are competible 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. hee placeth death in sin as wel as death for sin within the compasse of the term Death, equally flowing from the curse there mentioned; some particulars of that death in sin may bee thus instanced; 1 The losse of Gods Image. 2 Corruption of nature. 3 Servitude under sin, and Satan. 4. Gods 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 hee doth shew four wayes how they have the respect of punishment.

Now if Christ bare all the essentials of the Curse, then hee 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 bare this essential punishment of the Curse, and thence it will also follow, that either Christ bare 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 [Page 64] 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 shew 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 beleeve it will trouble his patience to make a clear Answer to this.

In his first Argument, in page 10. Hee saith, this sentence (In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death) was universal, given to Adam as a publick 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 evill (the evill of Adams 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 peece of strange Divinity, that Mr. Norton should hold the wages of sin to bee 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 dis-covenanting 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 Ransome; if so, then 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 confesse I am at a losse 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 dis-covenanting 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 dis-covenanting 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 bee all granted) yet I cannot see [Page 66] 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 de facto was executed, or not executed on the Elect, seeing betwixt them, and the Curse, the Covenant of grace doth (and from eternity did) virtually interpose, by Christ and his Ransome.

It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as (being the proper subjects of the Curse) remain under it, without any interposition of Christ, and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace.

3 I propound this to consideration, from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection (saith he) as it is the Antece­dent, not the cause of sin; so it is also the Antecedent, and not the cause of condemnation: Reprobation (saith he) is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty, not of Justice; Condemnation (that is, the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin) is an act of Justice, not of Lordship; no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger, because a Reprobate, but because a sinner.

Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query; Was Adam rejected? and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin? And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency?

4. I say, that absolute separation, dis-union, or dis-cove­nanting with God, is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin, Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes. 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity, l. 1 [...]. 16. n. 7.

5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God, &c. be a consequent only of Reprobation, then it pro­ceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty (as Mr. Nortons words speak) but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice. The dead were judged according to their works, not according to Gods Lordship, nor Reprobation. And saith Dr. Ames, The ha­tred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill, but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between.

6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation, and a proper effect of justice, as Mr. Norton himself also acknow­ledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting (saith he) of the Re­probate [Page 67] for their sin which they have committed, is the effect of justice; that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit, is also an effect of justice, but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace, is a consequent of Re­probation.

And why may it not bee as truly said, That the legal dis­covenanting of the Reprobates, and their falling into the bot­tomlesse pit, are consequents of reprobation, as say, that to­tality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of re­probation? they are alike consequents of reprobation, not proper effects of it, but rather effects of sin intervening, and conse­quently proper effects of Vindicative justice.

SECT. 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction, in these words, in page 8.

• Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment, because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done; but sin is a continuing of the injury, and a provocation of, not a satisfaction unto justice.
• 2 Saith he, Essential punishment is an effect of justice, of which God is the Author; But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin.
• 3 Saith he, The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment, yet are left unto sin (for a time) This in the Parenthesis was in his Manu­script.
• 4 Saith he, in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause. The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice, whereof God is the Author; Sinful qualities are a defect, not an effect, therefore they have a defici­ent, not an efficient cause, therefore of them God cannot be the Author.
• 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment, but was without sin.

These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man, and sinful qualities, are not Essential, but Accidental to the Curse.

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 shews.

Reply IT is beyond my capacity, I confesse, to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life, do come within the compasse 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 wee think of any Physical ad­junct of time after this world is ended? shall there be Phy­sical [Page 72] 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 bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments, by a comparison taken from the ina­bility of the debtor to pay, and therefore hee 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 Christs suffering of the essential curse.

SECT. 2.

But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes.]

• 1 By a compartive Argument.
• 2 By the Testimony of the School-men.
• 3 By Psal. 16. 10.

1 His comparative Argument is this; Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell, as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven. His words in page 119. are these; As the Man­hood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven, as Luke 9. 28. (if not at other times, yet after the Re­surrection) so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell.

Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee re­membred to bee the Essential torments of Hell; For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith, That [Page 107] the essential part was that, and onely, that which Christ suffered; Luke 9. 28. Who ever is pa [...]t [...]ker of the essential joyes of heaven is confirmed against the suf­fering of death. In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven, by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified, and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death; for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven, then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self; and in vers. 24. That they may be­hold my glory which thou hast given me; or else he reasons imper [...]inent­ly, and not to the point in hand: And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28.

If he had affirmed these suff [...]rings of Christ, and these glorious Revelations, in a metaphorical sense, then hee might have ac­corded with the Scripture sense, for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven, but not the Essential joyes; neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven, till he came there; neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture, prove it.

2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men; For in page 120. hee saith, The founder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell, namely, where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death; But in case the School-men did not teach so much, then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them, and the Reader, to cite them to his sense. But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent.

But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly; Hell metaphorically, for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self.

Reply. I confesse, I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so of­ten use the word Equivalent, seeing his fundamental principle is, Mr. Norton flies from his foun­dation princi­ple of essential torments, to that which is equavalent. That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell, and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction, and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue. Hee said in page 8 [Page 108] That the Essential part of Hell torments was that, and only that, which Christ suffered.

But here he is forced to leave that Principle, and to flye to that which is Equivalent; sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law, as if God could not alter one jot, because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam, but presently after, hee doth admit of the word Equivalent; such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles.

2 The metaphorical sense of Hell may bee thus considered, Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades, except in one place, and there it is transla­ted The metapho­rical sense of Sheol & Haides. Thanatos, death; the word in both languages is of large signi­fication, and it may be ranked into these senses; First, It signi­fies sorrows and afflictions. Secondly, Death, to the person. Thirdly, The Grave, to the body. Fourthly, The world of souls, to the souls departed; namely, to the godly soul, Paradise, and to the wicked, Gehenna; for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dye, whether they bee faithful, and go to heaven, or unfaithful, and go to hell; but Hades is first used for the hell of the dam­ned, in Luke 16. 2. Secondly, For the penal hell of the godly, in suffering persecutions and afflictions, in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them.

3 It is used for soul-sorrows, when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time, as I have no­ted in the first Distinction; one may be in the Hell of conscience (saith Mr. Wilson in his mystical cases, p. 188.) who shall never come into the hell of the damned; But saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ dying, page 35. 39. The hel in the soul of Gods children, and the hell of the Reprobate, differ in Essence and Na­ture.

4 Bucer makes Christs bodily death to be penal Hell, his Bucer in Mat. [...]7. [...]3. words, translated by Carlisle, speak thus; The ancient Fathers make no mention of Limbus or Purgatory; Let us (saith he) let this passe as the inventions of men; and let us rather give thanks to the Lord, who hath thrust his own Son into infernum, that is to say (saith he) that willed him to dye truly, that by his death we might be delivered.

Two things are observable in the words of Bucer.

[Page 109] 1 That he calls the bodily death of Christ, Infernum, or Hell.

2 That he ascribes our deliverance from hell, to the true bo­dily death of Christ.

5 I grant that Christ suffered the sorrows of Sheol and Hades in a Metaphorical sense, but in no sense did he suffer the sorrows of Gehenna, and that is the word that is properly meant of Hell torments; so that by Mr. Norton, Christ must suffer the Essential torments of Gehenna, in a penal Gehenna in this world. Of which see Mar. 9. 43. 45.

6 Mr. Norton by his distinction of a local and penal Hell, See Marbecks Com pl. p 22. doth much favour the opinion of the Albanenses, whose fourth Heresie was this, That in Hell there are no other pains than bee in this world; and Mr. Norton holds, that there are no other essential pains than what Christs suffered in this world: The opinions are very neer a kin, though in other matters I esteem Mr. Norton far afore them.

SECT. 3.

3. MR. Norton labours to confirm his said distinction of a local and penal Hell, by this Scripture, Thou wilt not leave psal. 16. 10. Act 2. 27. It is to admira­tion that Mr. Norton doth interpret Hell in the same Scripture, first to signifie Hell torments, and then only the the Grave. my soul in Hell; this is cited in Psal. 16. 10. and in Act. 2. 27. The soul, saith he, in page 39. is understood by judicious and learned Authors properly, Hell Metaphorically, for such pains as are equivalent to the pains of Hell it self. But yet Mr. Norton doth fully contradict and confute both himself and his learned and ju­dicious Authors; for in page 110. he saith, That the word Hades in the Creed is doubtlesse to bee interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture; But saith he in Acts 2. 27. It is taken for the Grave. Here he affirms it is taken for the Grave, and yet in the place fore-cited, he saith, It is taken for the pains of Hell it self, by the judgement of learned and judicious Authours. I confesse I cannot but wonder that hee should make hell in one and the same text to signifie such different things; it is a manifest testimony of the uncertainty of his judgement.

2 If Haides in Greek, and Sheol in Hebrew, and Hell in Eng­lish, signifie no more but the Grave in the said Scriptures, then [Page 110] I wonder how Mr. Norton can interpret the word Soul properly, of the immortal Soul of Christ, as he doth with the approba­tion of learned and judicious Authors; Doth the same Scripture in the same words, affirm that Christs immortal Soul did one while suffer the pains of hell in this life, and another while lye buried with his body in the Grave? Is not this to make the holy Scripture to be no better than a leaden Rule to bee bowed this way, & that way, after the fantasies of men at their pleasures?

He tells mee in page 258. That the Scripture lyeth not in the sound of words, but in the sense; but in this hee doth halt of his own sore, and therefore I retort his own words to him­self, that most pestilent Doctrines have oftentimes been com­municated in the language of the Scripture, &c.

3 Saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul in Psal. 16. 10. and Act. 2. 27. is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly; If Mr. Norton do approve the judgement of those learned and judicious Authors to the Reader, why then doth he in page 110. take Hell for the Grave; was his soul (properly taken) buried in his Grave? Secondly, why doth Mr. Norton blind the Rea­der, by saying that learned and judicious Authors do take the word Soul properly? seeing hee cannot be ignorant that other learned and judicious Authors take the word Soul there for the vital soul only, that liveth and dyeth with the body, & that soul might be dislocated in his body when he dyed, and so it might be buried with his body in the grave.

Mr. Ains. on the word Soul in Psal. 16. 10. in his conclusion saith thus, Compare it (namely this word Soul) with the like in other places, as Psal. 30. 4. Psal. 116. 8. and Psal. 89. 49. and 88. 4. and 94. 17. (all which places are clearly meant of the vital soul) and then hee makes application of this to Christ: Christ (saith he) gave his soul for the Ransome of the world, and powred it out to death, Isa. 53. 12. Mat. 20. 28. Joh. 10. 11, 15, 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus, these words, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, teach us Christs Resurrection; as if he should say, Thou wilt not leave me to the power of Death, or Grave, to be consumed. Mark this close of Mr. Ainsworths, hee interprets Hell to bee Dea [...]h, or the Grave.

2 Mr. Broughton, in his two Works defensive, expounds Psal. 16. 10. thus, Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death; In these [Page 111] words he expounds Christs soul to be his vital soul, and Sheol, Hell, to be Death (as Bucer did at fourthly above) Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death, and by a consequent (saith Bro.) nor my body in the Grave, nor my soul among souls, till my body see corruption.

And in his explication of the Article of Descent into Hell, page 16. he saith thus, Peter and Paul both citing this 16. Psalm, do cite it to no further death then that which all must feel.

3 Mr. Carlisle saith thus on Psal. 16. 10. Thou wilt not leave Nephes, my body in the Grave, for indeed the vital soul is a part of In his book against Christs local Descent. p. 32. the body; and thus speaks our larger Annotations on Psal. 16. 10. I confesse it is to my admiration that Mr. Norton should com­mend that exposition of the word Soul, for Christs immortal soul, properly, and yet by Sheol, and Haides doth understand no The soul in the N. T. is often put for the vi­tal soul. more but the Grave in page 110. And thus you see that Mr. Norton hath confounded his own Distinction.

The Hebrew Nephesh, and the Greek Psuche, 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, Lev. 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 signifie The life; and saith Carlisle in p. 155. Psuchee doth signifie 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 signifie the fear of death in Christs humane nature, in Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34.

But thirdly, Though Neshemah doth also signifie 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.

[Page 112] These things considered, I think Mr. Norton hath but little ground to perswade 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.

SECT. I.

1 Saith he, The Commination, Thou shalt surely dye, is not par­ticular concerning some kind of death, but indefinite, therefore equi­valent to an universal, comprehending all kinds of Death.

Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circum­stances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned, 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 compasse of it two wayes:

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 evill things in the commination, which he calls Total, Temporal, and properly Penal in Christ.

[Page 145] Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ, namely, the sepa­ration The death of Christ could not be a penal death, because Gods 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 dyed; 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 dyed voluntarily, saith Bernard (ad milites Templi, cap. 11.) that death had not been meritorious; how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death, so much more justly (man) liveth for whom he dyed; what justice, thou wilt ask, is this, that an innocent should dye for a malefactor? It is no justice, it is mercy; If it were justice, then should he not dye freely, but indebted thereto, and if in­debted, then indeed he should dye, but the other for whom he dyed, 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. Nortons Tenent, that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice, through the meritorious cause of sin, as our death is on us. But it is no such matter, Christs death is of another na­ture, The true na­ture of Christs death was to be a sacrifice. because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely, upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot, 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 Attonement or Reconciliation, smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God; and in this respect his death is the ground of merit; but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath, as deserved, through the im­putation of sin, it had merited nothing, as Bernard speaks above.

[Page 146] 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 withall 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, indured 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 spoyled Principalities and Powers in it, namely, in his death on the cross, which by Gods 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 head-plot, and so from winning the prize, name­ly, from the salvation of the Elect; and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage, that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wick­ed Malefactor.

These things I bring to exemplifie 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 Christs 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, [Page 147] whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ.

But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods 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 Adams con­version, for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bo­dily death was not threatned till four verses after, namely, in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin, and therefore the Apostle saith, it is appointed unto men once to die, namely, to men that were guilty of origi­nal sin; but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence; but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ, and saith, So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many, thereby shewing, that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice, and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death, and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many, in pro­curing Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sa­crifice.

So then I may well conclude, That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting, so his death, in the formality of it, was not like our death; for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the volun­tary Cause and Covenant; so also in the point of separating his soul from his body, he did it as a Mediator, by his own Priestly power, and not by Satans power, as I shall shew, God willing, more at large hereafter, in my Reply to Psal. 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46.

2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ, by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise, and by inflicting the evill things in the commination. But this I have already denied, and given my Reasons, in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and in Chap. 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the considera­tion of the learned, for the further clearing of this point.

Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21, makes death in sin, and [Page 148] death for sin, in their several branches (together with the evil of affliction) to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. (as an effect from the cause) as the proper wages of Adams first sin, Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23.

My first Question from hence is this, Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood, as speaking of sin, and the curse thereof, as it is to be considered de jure, namely, of the due desert of sin?

Secondly, Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death, to several sorts of persons, some to the Reprobates, and some to the Elect, in differing respects; Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin, and the curse thereof, as it is to be considered de facto, namely, in the event, and as it fell out to be executed, and that in a various manner; namely one way on the Elect, and another way on the Reprobate?

Quest. 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin, as naturally flowing from the curse, as an effect from the cause; Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof, as it is to be considered de jure, or as it is to be consi­dered de facto, or as it is both ways to be considered, seeing the curse, de facto, in relation to the Elect, was altered by the Gospel interceding?

Quest. 3. In considering the several branches of death, which of them are essential (and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin, or from our Original sin) as a proper Effect from the Cause, and which of them are accidental, not flowing from sin as sin, (as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh) but rather ac­cidentally, by means of some other thing.

If these Questions were rightly resolved, and rightly appli­ed to the points in agitation, the difficulties of this Controver­sie would be much easier: And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these three Questions.

SECT. 2.

NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly.

In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton, the meaning of these words, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die, Is this,

If man sin, man shall die, either in his own person, as the Reprobate, or in the person of the man Christ Jesus, the Surety of the Elect, according to the distribution above; so is the Text a full and uni­versal Truth; Man sins, and man dies.

Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith, If thou sinnest, thou shalt die; and so the Text is a full and universal Truth; Ezek: 18. 4, 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam, namely, as he was the head of all mankind, in the first Covenant, which was made with him touching mans nature in general, and therefore it holds all his natural posterity, whether Elect or Reprobate, a­like guilty of death, namely, of a spiritual death in sin, though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed, but this difference was not made in the first Covenant, but in the second, in Gen. 3. 15.

Secondly, Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety, for then he must have died our death in sin; But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant, namely, in the voluntary Cove­nant, as I have often said before.

But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech,

This Text is an universal and full Truth, Man sins, and man dyes.

Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself, for he takes the word Man ambiguously.

1 Saith he, man sins, here Man is taken specifice, for mankind.

[Page 150] 2 Saith he, Man dies, here the word man, as it relates to the Elect, is taken numeriee, and as it relates to Christ; so it must be taken for an individual person, as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6.

And so this elegant speech, Man sins, and man dies, is not ad idem, It is but a Paralogism, namely, a deceitful Sylogism, This speech, man sins, and man dies, is but a paralogism. which seemeth true when it is not,

But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24.

This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the pu­nishment of sin, with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it (or as it was in his manuscript con­cerning the manner of the execution of it) and truly, I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript, to such an uncouth ex­pression, except it be to puzzle his Reader.

Reply 5. I would sain know, why this reservation of Gods pur­pose is mentioned; It seems, it is for this purpose, to hook in Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam, as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text, and so to make the curse contained in it due to him, as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. (which hath been al­ready examined) and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ, saith he, be not within the compass of this Text, then the Text is not true; and a little after, Because elect sinners, not dying in their own persons, must die in their Surety; or else the Text is not a truth. Modesty would rather have said, or else the Text is not truly expounded.

2 Had Mr. Norton said thus, This Text is Gods judicial de­unciation of sin, (and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it) I should have assented to him.

3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin, As Gen: 2. 17. respects eternal death; so it speaks rather of the desert of sin, than of the event. and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin; but take the commination as it respected eternal death, (as Mr. Norton takes it) then it speaks onely of the desert of A­dams sin, and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity; for he was delivered from the event, by the interposition of the promised seed, and so God was pleased to alter the event of the [Page 151] commination of the first Covenant, by his grace declared in the new Covenant, in Gen. 3. 15.

4 This reason makes it evident, that this Text hath not any such reservation (as above mentioned) Because the commina­tion in this Text must accord with other the like comminations, which do limit the curse threatned, to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners, as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suf­fering of Hell torments from this Text, by one that never was a sinner inherently, would have been held a paradox in Divi­nity to our fore-fathers; and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death, from this Text, that never was guilty of the first death, never dead in sin, can be no less I think than a monster in Religion.

5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in re­lation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature, yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of rela­tive Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice (yea though it be granted, that it was made in relation to Adams o­bedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature,) because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel, nor yet the du­ties, nor the rewards of it, these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace; God did add what his good plea­sure was to add, when he published the Gospel, which is com­prized in Gen. 3. 15.

6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned, in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit. Or thus, both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin, and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin, Rom. 3. 19, 20. therefore de jure, they are both alike under the same curse, though after a while, the Elect, de facto are not un­der the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening, Gen. 8. 15. Rom. 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14.

1 Hence it follows, that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel.

2 Hence it follows, that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death, then it speaks of the desert, rather than of the event, of Adams sin in relation to the Elect.

SECT. 3.

THis Text (saith the Dialogue) doth not comprehend Je­sus Gen: 2 17. doth not compre­hend Christ w [...]thin the compass of it. Christ within the compass of it; for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posteri­ty, respecting the happiness they had by creation.

Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus;

Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works; it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text.

Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works, yet (saith he) he is not ex­cluded the compass of the Text, namely, of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue; and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text, or else (saith he in p. 23.) the Text is not true.

Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the pro­hibition, or else within the commination; But he cannot be contained in either of these, as I shall shew by and by.

But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the com­pass of this Text, thus;

Damnation (saith he) is no part of the Gospel, yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed; He that is baptized shall be saved, he that beleeveth not is damned.

Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Go­spel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail, but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it. But to speak more fully, the word Gospel must be considered two ways.

First, Either strictly, for the glad tidings of salvation one­ly.

Or secondly, More largely, not only for the glad tidings of [Page 153] salvation, but also as comprehending other appurtenances be­longing to that Covenant, as Ceremonies or Seals, and so in case of neglect, or contempt, punishments; In the first sense the threatning of Damnation is no part of the Gospel; but in the second sense it is.

Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance, is to make good his answer to the Dialogue, namely, that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works, yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works; even as Damnation, though it be no part of the Gospel, yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel.

I say, the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer; The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it, and therefore he hath not as yet proved, that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17.

But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good, That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text; for saith he, in page 24, 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited, was a figure of Rom. 5, 14. Christ to come, Rom. 5. 14.

Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited; But in the effects that followed his eating prohibited; the typi­cal Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ, lyes 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 compasse 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 [Page 154] 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 compasse of the Text, the Text is not true.

Reply. 4. We may soon lose our selves in this dispute, if wee keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand, which Mr. Norton labors to confute.

The Dialogue saith, this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compasse of it, as liable to the death there threatned: But Mr. Norton cites another text to prove it, namely Gen 2. 9. and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compasse 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 threatned; for saith he, Man sins, and man dyes (by vertue 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, &c. 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 [Page 155] compasse 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 compasse 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 threatned. Now then let it bee 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 hee was thereby liable to the death there threatned, he doth but labor 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 dye. Thou Adam in thine own person; and thou Adam in thy Posterity (saith the Dialogue) But not thou in thy Surety shalt dye; The word Thou shalt dye, 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 compasse of the first Covenant of works, saith Mr. Norton in page 24.

But thou shalt dye (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.

[Page 156] And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself, by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the com­passe 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 dispence with the execution thereof, without the violation of his Justice.

But God could not dispence 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. &c.

2 I say also that his minor is unsound; for it affirms that God could not dispence 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 threatned 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 onely to the Elect, but also to the Reprobate, while they live in this world.

2 Take the death there threatned for bodily death, and then we see by experience, that it was not formally executed at that present; neither shall it bee formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement, We shall not all dye, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.

[Page 157] 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell, and then we also see by experience, that it was not formally ex­ecuted God doth of­ten dispence with h [...]s pe­remptory threatnings. on Adam; but this is certain, that what God hath threatned against man for sin, he may justly inflict, but he is not alwayes bound to it (except his threatnings be delivered with an oath) Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin, but not what shall infallibly be inflicted, as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4.

2 We see also by experience, that God did often repent of his Threatnings, and thereupon did alter them from what hee 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 dye, thou shalt dye, and not live. This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is de­livered, first, Affirmatively, to dye, Thou shalt dye, that is, Thou shalt 2 King. 20. 1 [...]. surely dye. And secondly, It is delivered Negatively, Thou shalt not live. And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threat­ning 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 threatning, and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled de­finitive sentence, more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see, that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will, and for the removal of threatned 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 childs life, after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye, 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like, Exod. 32. 14.

4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee 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, [Page 158] yet the Apostle saith also, That we shall not all dye, 1 Cor. 15.

Therefore God, we see, doth often alter his peremptory threatnings.

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 dye. This threatning (saith Traheron on Rev. 4) seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning 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 dye: But take notice of this, that when God told Adam, If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge, thou shalt surely dye; there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sen­tence of death in sin, for till Christ was revealed, no repen­tance was ordained to alter Gods threatning; neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings, except they bee delivered with an oath. God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters, when they have threatned 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 dayes, and Niniveh shall be destroyed, Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traheron (not declaring Gods secret determination) what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them; yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning.

4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse, that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse, when they defile my Tabernacle that is among them: This threatning 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 dayes of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 30. 19, 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19, 20. of them were sick, and weak, and dyed, and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiah were healed, and restored to health: And so death is threatned in Num. 18. 22. None of the children [Page 159] of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congrega­tion, lest they bear sin, and dye, yet God dispenced with death to King Ʋzziah, and smote him with leprosie, and Saul dyed not, though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing.

But I intreat the judicious Reader, to take notice, that I pro­duce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption, where he affirms, That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse, but that it must be born either by Adam, or else by Adams Surety; In re­ference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase, In dying, Thou shalt dye, 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 threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law; for he makes Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law.

Reply 7 I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature, but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature, as his moral Law was. positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature, as the eating of the two Trees was; for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature, but reserved in Gods secret De­cree to be imposed on man, for an act, or acts, for a time, as hee 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 Gods 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 Adams moral perfections could not prevent, but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of positives, as I have shew­ed in Chap. 2.

[Page 160] 2 I do not remember (and I pray let the Judicious consider it) that eternal death is directly threatned 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 threatned for Unbeleef and Rebellion against the Law of Grace) and therefore the threatning in Gen. 2. 17. may bee exempted from that threatning, though not from death in sin.

3 Let it bee 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 somtimes 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 contray to the sixth Commandement, and hee commanded the Israelites to spoyl 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 shew, that God is not tyed to his revealed moral Laws, as wee are, but that he hath a supreme power to alter from that Rule to his secret Decree; but when God is God doth som­times alter from the rule of his moral Commands, to his secret De­cree. pleased to bind his promises or threatnings by an oath, then we may be sure his will so revealed is unalterable, because his oath doth alwayes declare what his secret Will and Decree is; And hence it comes to passe, 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 threatnings are annexed to his Laws, it is to shew unto man what his sin deserves, but not what God will certainly execute; for it is his good pleasure sometimes to Relax his threatning, which is a forgivenesse of temporal plagues, Psal. 78. 38. 2 Sam. 12. 13, 14. for as there are two sorts of punishments threatned, 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 [Page 161] dye whensoever thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, except I give thee a deliverance from death, namely, the Seed of the woman to destroy the Devils Head-plot.

And saith Ʋrsinus, 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 dispence with his threatnings? he answers thus to this Question, When threatnings are meerly parts of the Law, and not also predictions of events, and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabout, then they may be dispenced 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 dye the death, the meaning is, Death shall bee the due reward of thy sin, so that it may be inflicted at my pleasure, and not that hee should certainly suffer it in the event: And he cites Vossius, concluding that the Law was not abrogated, but relaxed, dis­penced with, and abrogate.

And to this sense saith another learned Divine: The com­mination in Gen. 2. 17. is like to some other of Gods threats against the Transgressors 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 bee answered, that the Holy Ghost in these, and such like places of Scripture doth signifie what is due to sin, and sinners, and what their estate must needs bee 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 bee, 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 Gods threatnings in the event are often alterable, and therefore that his threatning of eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. (in case it be there threatned) 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 [Page 162] therefore according to the liberty of his eternal will and pur­pose, hee ordained that the conflict of Christ with Sathan, in continuing obedient to the death of the Crosse, and at last making his soul a sacrifice, should be a valuable consideration, whereon hee would dispence with the rigor of his commina­tion, and so let fall, or suspend, the penalty of eternal death, in case it had been the chief thing threatned 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.

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 bare 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 bare 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 [Page 163] bearing those griefs and sorrows, be intends Christs bearing them in our stead, &c.

Reply 1. He makes the Reader beleeve, 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 hee infers that this speech in verse 4. He hath born our griefs, and car­ried our sorrows, doth intend 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 bee 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 hee doth winde 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 hee deceives both himself and the Reader, by joyning 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 God-head; 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 bare 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 God-head did shine in our eyes, (by his miraculous bearing away of sicknesses and infirmities) yet we esteemed him but as a grosse 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 [Page 164] of God, and afflicted for his own deserved faults. And thus the Reader may see the true sense of this verse to bee cleered by the context, as well as by Matthews translation. But if his bear­ing our sorrows, had meant that he bare our Hell-sorrows, then the last clause must have run thus, And wee did rightly judge that hee was plagued, and smitten of Gods 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 hee makes his last clause to bee 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 bare our very sorrow [...], 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 signifie to bear as a Porter bears a burden, and sometimes otherwise; Yet (saith he) Sabal, hee 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 shews himself to bee 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, hee 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 flye, but I hope the Lord will help me to receive Matthews interpretation before it.

But secondly, If Sabal doth signifie properly to bear as one bears a burden, and doth restrain Nasa to the same sense, then it follows, that either Christ took the infirmities from the sick, [Page 165] and bare 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 hee must either blame his own interpretation to justifie Matthew, or else he must still blame Matthews interpreta­tion of Sabal to justifie his.

3 I conceive that Mr. Norton had reasoned more like a Scholar, if hee had said, that though Sabal doth ordinarily signifie to carry as a Porter bears a burden, yet sometimes, when it is joyned with Nasa, it may signifie 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 Gods mer­ciful delivering his people from Babylon (and a metaphorical sense may bee compared with the litteral in some respects, but yet such comparisons must not alwayes run on four feet) I find also that the Seventy do there render Sabal by two differing Greek words, and neither of them do signifie 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 rendred 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 signifie that Christ bare our griefs and sorrows, as a Porter bears a burden, as hee 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, hee took our nature with our sin-less in­firmities, that so hee might bee 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 Christs 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 hee suffered in body, or inward, viz. such as be suffered in soul.

Reply 3. By this Tenent of his, it necessarily follows, that Christ bare all his outward sufferings, as a Porter bears a bur­den, from his birth to his death, as Hell-pains.

[Page 166] It is just with God, that he that keeps not close to the Con­text, when hee 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 bee more largely understood, than the place it self wherein they are written may bear, for otherwise, saith he, Wee may bee 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 hee) 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.

SECT. I. Isa. 53. 5. Examined.

He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniqui­ties. &c.

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 hee bare those wounds and bruises from Gods wrath.

Mr. Norton answers, true; But (yet saith hee) Christ was wounded not onely by Sathan, and his instruments; God is the universal Efficient.

[Page 167] Rep. 1. A [...] that he speaks to this point, namely, That God is the universal efficient, is to little purpose, except it bee to blind the Reader, to make him beleeve that the Dialogue doth make the Devil to be the universal efficient without Gods appointment; but any one that pleaseth to peruse the Dialogue, may see, that it makes all Christs sufferings to bee from Gods appointment, as the universal efficient: for the Dialogue propounds this Question, Who did wound him, and bruise him? and then it makes this answer, It was Sathan by his Instruments, according to Gods Prediction in Gen. 3. 15. for God said thus to Sathan, Thou Sathan shalt pierce him, thou Sathan shalt put the promised Seed to Death, as a wicked Ma­lefactor, by thy Instruments, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the Roman Souldiers; thou shalt peirce his hands and feet, by nay­ling them to the Crosse, according to the determinate Coun­sel of God, and in this respect God may bee said to wound him.

Thus farre 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 Christs 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 beleeve, That the Dialogue doth hold that which it doth abhor, as in Psa [...], 103. 114. 130, &c. See my Reply in Cha. 14. Repl. 4. so also in p. 40. after he had drawn a false inference from the sense of the Dialogue, then he concludes with this scoff, Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this text from the word Nasa, a­gainst concluding the Doctrin of imputation there-from, 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 tearm in Es. 53. 6. thus; If you will build the common Doctrin 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 [Page 168] 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 tearm of laying any thing upon a mans self, or up­on another, is to bear it, and so the tearms, 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. &c. are tearms in English that are Synonima, and therefore the Argument of the Dialogue is sound and good, against such as maintain the Doctrin of imputation from the translated tearm in Es. 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all, and I beleeve that any indifferent judicious Reader will judge it so to be.

The like unjust quarrel Mr. Norton makes against the Dialogue about the word Attonement, for saith he in p. 260. The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning attonement, seemeth to under­stand pardon of sin by Attonement; but here (saith he) it seemeth by Attonement to understand Reconciliation.

Rep. 3. What can Mr. Norton mean else by this speech, but to make the Reader beleeve, that I did not in all my Discourse concerning Attonement, till now, make reconciliation to bee meant by Attonement? 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 Attonement 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 attonement between the World and himself; and so in p. 32. I call the Judges Attonement a reconciliation, but I passe over several other such like un­just exceptions, because I will spend my time the more in the substance of the main Controversie.

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; Sathan and men were Instruments [Page 169] 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 paines. 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 Childes life (which also did occa­sion his Parents to carry him into Aegypt) it was from Gods Vindicative wrath, although, to prevent it, God in mercy war­ned Joseph to take the Child, and to fly into Aegypt.

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 Gods 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 Christs grea­test Sufferings was Chastise­ments, there­fore they can­not be called the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods 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 Aegypt 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 indured in that long action of his Passion, from his Apprehension to his Death, I say, all these sufferings hee 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 Gods 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 signifie the correction of a Father towards his Son, as all these places do testifie, 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 [Page 170] nature of all Christs 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 Fathers chastisement, and therefore it follows necessarily, That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements, they were not infl [...]cted on him from Gods Vin­dicative wrath, and I beleeve 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 farre from being inflicted on him from Gods 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 kinde of them, as these Scriptures do testifie, 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 Gods Vindicative wrath, that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from Gods Vindicative wrath, seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kinde of his sufferings.

Secondly, These Scriptures do testifie 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 bee but Chastisements, then 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 Gods Vindicative wrath, unlesse M. Norton wil prove that the Apostles also did suffer Gods Vindicative wrath, which in another place he seems to deny.

SECT. III.

But it may be some will here object, That though Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements, yet they were inflicted on him from Gods 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 kinde of punishments, his suffering must also be from Gods wrath.

Reply 5. IT doth not follow, for Christ might truly partake Christs 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 Superiours, and Christ also may suffer such like wounds, and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed, but as a volun­tary Combater with Sathan 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 Sathan and the Seed of the deceived Wo­man, and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ, and to bruise him, and to peirce him as a Malefactor in the foot-soals, and to do what he could to disturbe 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 Crosse, and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice, he overcame Principalities and Powers in it, namely in the manner of his death on the Crosse, so that the cause of Christs Wounds was not from Gods judicial im­putation of our sin and guilt, nor from Gods judicial wrath, but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Sathan, for the breaking of his Head-plot by his constant o­bedience, even to the death of the Crosse for mans R [...]demption; so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing caus [...], and are for a differing end from [...]he sufferings of the Sa [...] [Page 172] and so consequently not from Gods wrath, as theirs is; But I shall inlarge 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 Sathan 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 hee saith, That some of Christs sufferings were inflicted None of Christs suffer­ings were in­flicted on him from Gods 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, &c. do come to bee 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 mens 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 mens souls, but of Christs soul. The Dia­logue saith, That Christs soul is not capable of bearing wounds from Gods immediate wrath: But all Mr. Nortons proofs are of mens souls that are sinners.

But saith Mr. Norton in page 38. Sathan 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 Sathan may afflict the spirit of a sinner, yet still that doth not prove his Proposition which hee [Page 173] undertook to make good, namely, That God from his im­mediate wrath did afflict the spirit of Christ.

But saith Mr. Norton, If Sathan 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; hee saith that the soul of Adam in his innocency, and the soul of Christ were privileged from all inward suggestions from Sathan, and that Sathan could tempt them no 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 hee) though God is to be feared, because hee only can cast both body and soul into hell; Yet (saith hee) this is not meant as if God were the immediate Tormentor of souls after the great day, seeing they are to bee 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 mens 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 bee 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.

[Page 174] Reply 9. I have shewed 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 Gods immediate wrath, without any second means? which is the very point that Mr. Norton undertook to make good.

But saith hee, His great heavinesse, sore amazement, and sweat, as it were great drops of blood, cannot bee looked at in a person that was both God and man, as lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows, &c.

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 heavinesse, sore Christs 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 lesse than the effects of Hell-sorrows? as if Christs humane nature was not able to bear these sorrows, without the powerful assistance of his divine nature: It seems to mee, he thinks that his Godhead by vertue of personal union did alwaies co-operate to the assisting of his humane nature to undergo his soul-sorrows, as our bodies are holpen to bear our sufferings by our souls, by reason of personal union: But I shall joyn 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 bee 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 bee exem­plified by any other union whatsoever: Indeed, if his hu­mane [Page 175] nature had been a true part of his divine person, as our souls are of our persons, then it must have holpen his humane nature to bear his sorrows; but I think it is no lesse than he­resie 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 bee 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 doubtlesse, as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits, so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities, much more then our corrupt natures can bee. 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 hee bare our sin; But wee were delivered not only from the bodily, but also from the spiritual punishment of sin. There­fore, &c.

Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech, Wee were de­livered from the spiritual punishment of sin, doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell.

But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity, in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit, was a spiritual death in sin; and that bodily death, and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin; and hence I reason thus: That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin, without bearing it in kind, and from our bodily diseases, in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind, hee may as well deliver us from our spiritual and eternal death in hell, without bearing it in kind.

[Page 176] But saith Mr. Norton in page 40.

Whilst you so often affirm, that obedience of Christ to be meritori­ous, and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice, you so often affirm a contradiction; the very nature of merit inclu­ding justice; for merit is a just desert, or a desert in way of justice.

Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice, or else it is the way of justice according to the volun­tary Covenant. The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true na­ture of merit, and how Christ did merit our Redemption. vindicative justice; but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice, according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant; but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit, be­cause he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope, or else he could not have said, that it affirms a contradiction: In­deed I should have affirmed a contradictioni, f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth, that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death, was from Gods judicial impu­ting our sins to Christ.

But the Dialogue goes another way to work, it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman, and that Christ in his humane nature, must combate against him, and break his Head-plot, by continuing obedient to the death, and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious, because it was all performed in a way of justice, namely, in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant, as I have shewed also in Chap. 10.

And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eter­nal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that de­claration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15.

1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan (doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam, and for his instruction) that he would put an enmity between him and the woman, and between the devils seed and her seed (hee shall enter the Lists, and try Masteries with thee) and hee shall break thy Head-plot (and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree [Page 177] in Luke 22. 44.) And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him; and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman, and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience, as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam, and in case thou canst disturb his pa­tience by ignominious contumelies, or by the torture of a pain­ful death, and so pervert him in his obedience, then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice, and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot, and so from winning the prize, and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst, and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise, and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death, like to wicked malefactors.

But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance, and continue obedient to the death, without any diversion, and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power, then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satis­faction for the sins of the Elect, and so hee shall break thy Head-plot, and win the prize, which is the salvation of all the Elect; and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exempli­fied to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb, presently after his Fall.

Lo, here is a true description of Christs merit, according to the order of justice, as it was agreed on, in the voluntary Co­venant; For wee may gather from the threatning, First, That there was such a voluntary Covenant. Secondly, That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials. And thirdly, that upon the per­formance thereof, God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect, Phi. 2. 9, 10, 11. Es. 5 3 10 &c.

Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris, part. 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause.

That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation (saith hee) is a kind of efficient, there needs no other proof, then that it binds as it were the principal efficient, to perform that which upon the merit is due; As if a man in running a race, or the like, so runneth as the order of the Game requireth, by so do­ing, hee meriteth the prize or reward, and thereby also hee [Page 178] bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved.

This is a true description of the true nature of Christs me­rit according to the order of justice, in the voluntary Covenant, better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice, by a legal imputation of sin; for the Scripture is silent in this way, and plain in the other way.

And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant, These Conclusions do follow.

1 That the wounds, bruises, and blood-shed of such as did win the prize, cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vin­dicative wrath of the Masters of the Game, caused through the imputation of sin, and guilt against their Laws; for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law, as the Apostle doth witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1, 2. Imputation of sin in the vo­luntary com­bate doth lose the prize. and on 2 Tim. 4. 8. and take notice, that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With ex­cellent wrastlings have I wrastled, namely, for the mastery and victory; and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8.

2 Hence it follows, That the said wounds, bruises, and blood-shed, ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffer­ed without the imputation of sin. punishments from the Masters of the prize, but as voluntary trials of their man-hood, of their patience, and obedience to their Laws.

3 Hence it follows, That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa. 53. 5. 10. &c. which Christ suffered, were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sa­than, God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise, but as hee gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ. in Gen. 3. 15. I confess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peirced 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 Sathan and his instruments; Isaiah saith, He was wounded and bruised for our transgressions, namely, by Sathan at Gods appointment, and because Christ did voluntarily under­take this combate with Sathan, therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace, and for our healing; And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to [Page 179] bruise him, and to put him to grief, namely, according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath, hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath, as Mr. Norton affirms, for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath, is to bee forced to suffer by vio­lence.

Job did acknowledge, when the Devil destroyed his cattel 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 boyls, The hand of the Lord hath touched me, Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls, 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 combate 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 Sathan and his Instruments to combate 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 hee declared that Sathan 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 foretel his sufferings to his Disciples, saying, Behold wee 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 Gods wrath.

4 This doth cleerly exemplifie, how, and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was merito­rious.

5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie, how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments, without the judicial imputa­tion of our sins to him by God.

[Page 180] 6 This also doth exemplifie, how God is said to bee just to sinners, in 1 Joh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely, because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator, that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan, according to the Laws of the combate, that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners; As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate, 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 beleeveth 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, hee may see an in­stance to the contrary.

But Mr. Norton saith in page 140.

Though the notions of a Mediator, and a Malefactor, are cleerly distinct in themselves; yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Me­diator, and as a Malefactor, is unsound.

Reply 14. Though it bee 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 dye as a Malefactor, for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor, and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals.

And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those suffer­ings in obedience to the Laws of the combate, he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation (taught by the death of some Lamb) by his Priestly power, even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures, or else he could not have been the Media­tor of the New Testament, through death, if hee had not (as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings) offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit; both his natures did con­cur [Page 181] to make his death a sacrifice, and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death; As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb, 9. 14, 15, 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor, and a Mediator, to bee cleerly distinct.

7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ, were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan (not in the power of his God-head, 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 bee bruised for our iniquities. And thus Peter must bee understood, when he saith, He bare our sins in his body on the Tree; that is to say, Our punishments in his combate with Sathan, 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Sathan, Isa. 53. 7. when hee suffered himself to bee apprehended by a band of armed Souldiers, and to bee 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 combate with that roaring Lion Sathan 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 Gods justice, by wor­shipping the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. Then Moses said, I will now go up to the Lord, peradventure I shall make Attonement for your sin; and he said to God, If thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not (but that they must still dye) 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 hee was made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses, say the Hebrew Doctors was, That hee might dye 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 Gods imputation, doubtless hee [Page 182] 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 in­lighten 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 hee being just in Gods sight, ingaged himself, acording to a mutual and reciprocal, Covenant, to enter the Lists with Sa­than, and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Sathan, even to the death of the Crosse, that so at last hee might make his soul a sacrifice of Attonement, and so bring us to God. Mark this, Hee is called the just in all his sufferings: But hee was not so called in the Jews account, for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor. Neither could hee bee 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, hee that knew himself to be every way just in the sight of God, and of his Law, hee entred the Lists, and suffered from Sathans enmity, and yet still he continued obedient to the death, and so continued to bee just. And hence wee may see wherein the efficacy of Christs All Christs 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 Sathan, his patience was not disturbed, nor his obedience perverted, but to the very last, hee approved himself to bee most just and righteous in the sight of God, and therefore hee conquered Sathan by righteousnesse (as the ancient Divines do very often speak) because he strove lawfully, according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters; And so hee won the prize.

2 In his combate with Sathan, his obedience was eminent, above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that pa­tiently submits his life to bee taken away by justice, because hee put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Sathan, and in all his sufferings, that so hee might please him that had chosen him to bee the Captain of our salvation; and in that respect his chastisements which hee suffered from Sathans malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper, are [Page 183] said to bee 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 evill in it self to bee punished from a voluntary un­dertaking of a combate, but to bee punished in a legal way, through a legal imputation of sin and guilt, that is a true evill 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 Wildernesse, as soon as ever hee 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 bee 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 combate 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 shews in p. 49.

2 Take another instance of Christs voluntary obedience, in entring into the Lists with Sathan as the Captain of our salvation, in all that long businesse that is called his Pas­sion.

1 He manifested himself to bee continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to bee for his apprehension and death, Luke 12. 50. Joh. 12. 23, 27. &c. 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 combate with Sathan, 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 hee was active, and provoked Judas at Supper to go out, saying unto him, What thou doest, do quickly, Joh. 13. 27. and then saith hee, The Son of man goes as it is determined (namely by a mutual Covenant) Luke [Page 184] 22. 22. and then said he, The Prince of this world cometh (to in­counter with mee, with more armed violence than formerly) but saith hee, Hee hath nothing in me, Joh. 14. 30. hee hath no just ground to accuse mee for breaking the Laws of the combate, and therefore hee cannot hinder me from winning the prize; and when Christ arose to go to the Garden, where hee knew hee must bee apprehended, he said thus to his Disciples, As my Fa­ther gave me a Commandement (or Appointment) so I do; Arise▪ let us go hence, Joh. 14. 31. It is my Fathers appointment, and it is my Covenant that I should now arise to meet these armed Arch-Instruments of Sathan. And when Judas and the Soul­diers came to apprehend him, hee said to the chief Priests, This is your hour, and the power of darknesse (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, hee would not bee protected from Sathans power, and therefore hee bid him to put up his sword; for said hee, 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 Foot-soals, Gen. 3. 15. and so likewise in the hands, Psal. 22. 16. And that I must bee oppressed by a band of armed Souldiers, Joh. 18. 3. 12. and brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, Isa. 53. 7. Isa. 33 7. And when hee came to his Answer, hee 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 darknesse, to ex­ercise his utmost force against him, therefore hee did not like a faint-hearted Souldier, withdraw himself from them into some unknown place, but he purposely went into a known Garden where hee knew hee must bee apprehended by Sathans 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 befal 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 hee had but said unto them, I am Hee (that must break the Devils Head-plot by my constant patience and obedience) [Page 185] they all fell to the ground at his word speaking, and here hee kept them, for his Disciples sake, untill they might have liberty to depart; and if hee would hee 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 hee might bee active in delivering himself unto their power, to bee appre­hended, and to bee bound as a Malefactor, and so to be carried before the Elders of the people; And thus hee was active to drink of the bitter Cup that his Father had given him, for hee had said but a little before unto Peter, Put up thy sword (and protect me not against these furies of Sathan) 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 Sathan, 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 Fathers 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 Sathan loose, to oppresse him, to wound, and to bruise him, and to put him to as much grief as hee could, to disturb his patience, and to pervert him in the course of his obedience, when his soul should make it self an offering, that so hee might prevent his sacrifice, by which means only, it was decreed that the Devils Head-plot must be broken.