out the Fall of Angels for Adams soul was as perfect in the knowledge of all moral things as Christs soul was and therefore though Christ permitted the Devil to tempt him for forty dayes together yet when at last the Devil saw he could not prevail with those temptations he began to tempt him to moral sins namely to worship him c. But then Jesus said unto him Hence Satan Mat. 4. 10. The like would Adam have said if he had been tempted to a moral sin At the first saith Peter Martyr Adam could not by his reason In Appendix to his Com. pl. p. 145. know that the Devil was fallen or else his will had been governed by his mind Conclusions from the Premiseâ— 1 Hence we may discern what was the true nature of the first Covenant namely that it did not consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature But in his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive Law concerning his act of eating of the two Trees 2 Hence it follows That in case the Devil had first tempted Adam to a moral sin he had by that act discovered himself to Adam as he did to Christ to be naught then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation for then Adams will would have been governed by his inlightnedmind and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature as they were to Christ and then he would have said to Sathan as Christ did Hence Sathan and then Sathan could not have prevailed afterwards for Adams wisdome was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place as the best food for his confirmation 3 Hence it follows That Adam did not first sin in soul as Mr. Norton holds and as indeed he had done in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature but his sin was only against that positive Law that did only forbid his bodily act of eating as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works 4 Hence it follows That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant about things indifferent in their own nature p. 188. is sound and good namely in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of such a positive Law as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law 5 Hence it follows That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life as his wisdome would have caused him to do in the very first place if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him they should have had a propagated Righteousnesse because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a publick person saith Mr. Burges and also generally all Protestant Divines 6 Hence it follows That the moral Law in Adams nature was not ordained for Adams justification as Mr. Norton holds The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adams justification but as a condition only oâ— his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of liâ—e but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection for God could not make man perfect but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law But Mr. Norton saith in page 231. That four things were requisite to Adams justification by the works of the Law And at fourthly he saith That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience Reply From this Assertion it follows That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity and yet have failed at last and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years space and all the rest after that time after the image of Sathan And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this namely That upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law And saith he in Page 244 Adams justification consisted not in one act of obedience This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant For it is acknowledged by Bucanus whom I No act of Adams obedience had been imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act in eatting of the tree of â—iâ—e in case he had stood have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3. that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first and that first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was not so much personal as natural namely it was common to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adams obedience That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant See Vindicae Legis also in p. 1 19 120. Secondly Hence also it follows That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life that act also had justified him no further but from Sathans accusaâ—ion And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life But any man that hath but half an eye may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses but especially to the Ceremonial Law And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall except only of justification from the Devils accusation and temptation as I said before for no doubt the Dâ—vil had said to God as he said afterwards against Job that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam then Adam would disobey as they had done But in case Adam had not yeelded to Sathans temptation but had taken warning by the prohibition and by the threatning and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit but had first eaten of the Tree of life then he had been justified by that act against Sathans accusation and temptation but he needed no justification in respect of his
3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 96 22 chap. 13 14. Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promisess By which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grâ—pe out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123 holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p. 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to maintain it p. 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as be did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordamed a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfuâ—â— ness to Christ in the very time when he diâ— execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christ suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they have any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult p. 77 Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply 24. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential tormonts of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore be did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guiss of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then his nature as it was the fountain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then be must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the bigbest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by nature generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because be voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can be he said to be our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89. 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p. 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration
obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of Grace In Vindiciae â—lâ—gis â—ect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 166 178. The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did 〈◊〉 make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there so not actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and 〈◊〉 to the end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence it follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby he might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesus Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Wbitgenstenius at the end of vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification 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 of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often ciâ—â— 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 as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect Lev. 18. 5. See Bell on the Covenant p. 136. 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 Lawin 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 Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Rom. 2. 13. 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
known to us two wayes 1 By the universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun 1 Mr. Norton doth crosse both these Positions For first hee allows some ease to the body of Christ though he saith It was made up in his soul And secondly Hee had also some drop of consolation to his soul in the Garden 2 Hee also grants an intermission after Hell-torments were begun upon Christ for in page 68. Christ saith he had his interims of respite and in the Garden an interval of consolation otherwise saith hee Hee could not have fulfilled that which is written of him But if this reason bee sound and good why hee had an interval of consolation in the Garden then by the same reason he must have an interval of consolation on the Crosse for when he was in his greatest Torments on the Crosse and ready to give up his soul then he remembred that something must be fulfilled that was written of him for so doth John tell us Joh. 19. 28. Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished and that the Scripture might be fulfilled said I thirst Wherefore did he say I Joh. 19. 28. thirst the answer is because he remembred that that Scripture in Ps 69. 21. must be fulfilled and therfore he said I thirst When Jesus therfore had received the vinegar for the fulfilling of that Prophesie he said It is finished and hee bowed his head and gave up the ghost Therefore no extremity of Torments did confound his memory Joh. 19. 30. and will from fulfilling of what ever was written but though Mr. Norton doth allow some interims of respite to Christ in the Garden yet otherwhiles he saith That Christ whiles he was in the Garden began not meerly to be amazed but also to bee very heavy The word saith he notes Expavefaction which was such a motion of his mind superadded to his consternation whereby for the time hee was dis-inabled as concerning the minding of any thing else being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God he must have a better head then I that can reconcile his former speech and this latter speech together before he said that Christ had his interims of respite in the Garden and an interval of consolation or Mr. Norton imputes the sin of unmindfulnesse to Christ in time of executing his office else he could not have minded the fulfilling of that which was written of him but now he saith that in the Garden he was in such a motion in his mind whereby for the time he was disinabled as concerning the minding of any thing else It is strange that hee should not be able to mind any thing else and yet in his greatest torments on the Crosse wee see he was able to mind that one Scripture to be fulfilled therefore hee said I thirst Therefore I conclude that this interpretation of Christs fear and heavinesse in the Garden by amazement and by such a motion of his mind as dis-inabled him from the minding of any thing else but the sense of the dreadful wrath of God is a most dangerous imputation of sin to Christ in the time of the execution of his Priestly Office as I have noted it in Mar. 1433. in Chap. 17. Sect. 4. And though Dr. Williams doth hold that Christ suffered both the pain of Losse and the pain of Sence in page 437. yet in page 447. hee saith In his seven golden Candlesticks p. 437. 4. 17. That all the Divine comforts were not detained from him on the Crosse when he said My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons judgement cannot be sound because he doth so often contradict himself and that Scripture of Joh. 19. 28. My second Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Torments of Hell Reason 2. If Christ made satisfaction by suffering the Essential punishment Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as they have life in the womb of the Curse in our stead Then it doth necessarily follow that all the Elect are actually justified as soon as ever they have life in the womb and therefore before they can have any actual faith This opinion of Mr. Nortons doth strongly support the Antinomian Tenent But saith Mr. Woodbridge It is evident by Scripture That none In his Sermon of justification â—ay faith p. 22. are actually justified till they have faith and the ground of this is saith he because the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but the equivalent being not the payment of the Debtor but of the Surety and therefore it doth not deliver ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him when he undertook to be our Surety If a Debtor saith he bring me what he ows me it dischargeth him presently But the payment of a Surety is a payment that is refusable in itself and therfore it effects not the discharge of the principal Debtor but at the time and according to the conditions between the Surety and the Creditor and that time agreed on was not till those that live to yeers of discretion have actual faith My third Reason why Christ did not suffer the Essential Reason 3. Punishment of the Curse If Christ made satisfaction by paying our proper Debt in kind Payment in kind leaves no room for the exercising of Gods free pardon then there is no place left for pardon But it is evident that God doth daily pardon beleeving sinners of his mâ—er grace and mercy yea according to the greatnesse of his mercy as the Dialogue shews page 31. 154 156 c. And the ground of this is because the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem 1 If in and with Christ saith Mr. Wotton we have formerly satisfied the justice of God then there is no place left for pardon De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 21. Sect 8. for the same man for the same offence cannot bee both punished and pardoned by God because pardon and punishment are directly contrary 2 Saith Mr. Baxter If the proper Debt either of obedience or suffering be paid either by our selves or by any other then there is no place left for pardon for when the Debt is paid wee owe nothing except obedience de novo and therefore can have nothing forgiven us for the Creditor cannot refuse the proper debt nor deny an acquittance upon the receit thereof In his Apho of Just p. 169 But Christ having paid the Tarâ—â—ndem and not the idem the value and not the strict debt This satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs suffering which yet because hee did freely accept therefore his gracious act is properly called Pardon 3 Saith Mr. Baxter in page
Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Job 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonah had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but