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 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 with out 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 â—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 Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii 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 â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
Epist 10 Whitgensteniâ—â— 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 not only in his disputation with Gomarus but also in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication in p. 13. 91. 10â— 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. Gatakar propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith That the Law which Christ In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51 Psal 40. 8. saith was in his heart or bowels Psal 40. 8. was that special Law which lay upon him as he was the second Adam namely it was a positive Law like that which was given to the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mediator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten 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 Justiâ—â—â—a personâ— the righteousnesse of his person the other Justiâ—ia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines 〈◊〉 perâ—ene but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justiâ—ia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Pâ—ideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personâ— 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 Pes 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 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 Madiatorial 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 pâ—rsecâ—te 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 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
a true bodily death in opposition to Mr. Nortons spiritual death with this explanation that his death was such a kind of bodily death that it was also a mediatorial death and sacrifice If Mr. Norton had not been more than ordinary blinded with prejudice against the Dialogue he could not so often have mistaken the words and sense of the Dialogue as I have noted it also elsewhere yea in page 153. he saith That Christ suffered not only a natural but a spiritual death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christs meer inability as man to prevent death by the use of means or other mens inability thereto and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life but on the contrary to give up themselves to death such as was the present case of Christ and was long before the case of Isaak and sometimes hath been the case of Martyrs who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy cannot bee looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death Reply 6. I shall speak the briefer to this inference because I have already shewed in Reply 3. That the humane nature of Christ was priviledged from death and from the fear of death and from all other miseries by nature But yet such was his infinite and eternal love to the Elect that were fallen in Adam that according to the Council of the Trinity he entred into a Covenant with his Father to take upon him the seed of the deceived woman with our infirmities and to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan that had a Commission given him to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious death and therefore he covenanted to manifest the truth of his humane nature in fearing and abhorring such a kind of usage for the salvation sake of all the Elect And saith Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 342. God by a permissive decree appointed the crucifying of the Lord of life but as touching his approving and commanding will he did neither will the crucifying of his Son but forbids and hates it as execrable murther 1 Then consider Christs troubled natural fear of death materially with all the circumstances of ignominy and tortures from the Devil and his Instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. and then it was his duty to stir up his sensitive soul to be tenderly and eminently touched with a trembling fear and with a manifest abhorring of this kind of usage 2 But consider his ignominious and painful death formally namely with the reward that was annexed to it by Gods Covenant which was that he should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect and then I say It was the duty of his rational soul not to fear but earnestly to desire to perform this combate with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst and therefore in this regard he said I delight to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Heb. 10. And I desire to eat this Passover this Type of my death before I suffer 3 Christs humane nature knew perfectly by the revealed will of God in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil against him with an express permission to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the foot-soals and in this combate hee knew it was the declared will of God that hee should encounter him not with the power of his God-head but with his humane nature only as it was accompanied with our infirmities of fear sorrow c. and therefore by his Covenant hee was bound to express and manifest his troubled natural fear of such an unnatural usage and accordingly he declared it to his three Apostles that he took with him to be witnesses that he did then begin to be sorrowful and very heavy saying unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to the death Mat. 26 37 38 39. Mat. 26. 38 39. and then he went a little further from them and fel on his face and prayed saying O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me and this request he made three times over because it was of absolute necessity that that cup should pass from him namely the cup of his natural fear I have shewed in the Dialogue page 46. that the word Cup is put for a measure or portion of any thing either of joy and comfort or of ignominy and pain or of fear and sorrow and at this time he was very heavy and sorrowful and therefore the cup that he doth so earnestly deprecate is the cup or measure or portion of his present natural fear Hee doth not in this place as I apprehend deprecate his ignominious and painful death but the fear and dread which his sensitive soul had of it at this present and he was heard and delivered from his natural fear or else hee could not have laid down his life by his own will desire and power as hee had covenanted Joh. 10. 17 18. But as soon as hee had obtained a confirmation by his sweating prayers against this his natural fear then when the band was come to apprehend him he was fearless and said unto Peter Put up thy sword again into its place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more Mat. 26 52 53 54. then twelve legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that say Thus it must be The Scriptures in Gen. 3. 15. c. say that I must bee thus apprehended condemned and executed by the power of Satan and his instruments Thus it must be I must be thus used as you shall now see mee to bee by these Arch-instruments of Satan yea thus it must bee of necessity even by the necessity of the voluntary Decree and Covenant and therefore I must bee voluntary also in the performance of this combate and not admit of any obstruction to my Combarter by thy sword he must by Gods declared permission have his liberty to do his worst to provoke my patience and I must do my duty by continuing constant in my obedience through all his assaults But John doth relate our Saviours Joh. 18. 1â— words to Peter thus Put up thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it namely that portion of my ignominious and painful sufferings which my Father hath appointed mee to undergo as hee hath declared it in Gen. 3. 15. Here you see that Christ did not now dread this cup of his ignominious and painful sufferings as hee did the fear of this cup in Matth. 26 37. Then it was necessary before he prayed that his natural infirmities of fear and sorrow should appear but now it was as necessary after he had obtained his request that