Those words [ Thou shalt die ] being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed , Ibid. but also of eternal torment ; 5. Ibid. it follows , That the Life implicitly promised , is to be understood , not only of the continuance of that Life , but of Eternal Blessedness .

I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works ; Ibid. but that some are so under that Covenant , that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant , nor are guilty of contemning it , being utterly ignorant of it .

To whom God doth not say , Ibid. [ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ , and thou shalt be saved ] to them in effect he doth say [ Obey perfectly and live ] ; or , [ If thou sin , thou shalt die eternally ] . But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say [ Believe , &c. ] that Promise is altogether unknown unto them , they live and die without ever hearing of it , so that to them it is as if it had never been . Consider ( I pray ) what the Apostle saith to this purpose , Ephes. 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death ? Do not many continue in the same Condition ? I yeeld , that none are so under the Covenant of Works , but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy , and that by vertue of the New Covenant : but that which I stand upon is this , That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised , being not revealed unto some , nor any way dispensed unto them , they cannot be said to be under it , nor shall be judged as transgressors of it .

Add , 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been , yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy , ( setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant ) might have been enjoyed . Add , 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance , yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience , consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God . Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made , Man after his Fall , though plunging himself into sin continually more and more , yet had contracted no more Guilt , nor incurred any greater Condemnation , than he did by his first Transgression . And , 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him ; and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation . Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects ; but as rebelling ( I conceive ) only against the Law , not against the Gospel , they being such as never were acquainted with it . Add , 4. There are common Mercies , ( which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been ) the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn ; yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save . If such Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery , How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? Ephes. 2. 12.

Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose , Ibid. to shew , That as they that sinned without the Law , shall perish without the Law ; even so they that sinned without the Gospel , shall perish without the Gospel . That 2 Thess. 1. 7 , 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ , but also of such as know not God . The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts , viz. such as know not God ; so he describes the Gentiles , 1 Thess. 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel , &c. that is , such as having had the Gospel preached unto them , would not receive it , either not at all , or not sincerely . Yet Christ ( he saith ) will in flaming fire take vengeance on both , as well on the former as on the latter . And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me , and so , as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do . Of the Coven . Infidels ( saith he ) that were never under any other Covenant than that of works , and Covenant-breaking Christians , Chap. 5. p. 23. are in the same condemnation ; there are not two Hells , but one and the same for those that know not God , and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ , 2 Thess. 1. 8. ]

You pass by that which I alledged from Rom. 6. ult . viz , Ibid. That death , which is the wages of sin , is opposed to Eternal Life , which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven . Ergo , Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell ; and that ( you know ) is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death . I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say , [ Call it the first or second Death , as you please ] ?

The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul , Ibid. I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection . Tertullian surely thought so , or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument . De Resur . cap. 15. Age ( inquit ) scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione , ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione . Negent operum societatem , ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare . Non sit particeps in sententia caro , si non fuerit in causâ And again , Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum . And again also , Ibid. c. 38. Non possunt separari in mercede ( caro & anima ) quas opera conjungit . Ibid. c. 8. And surely that of the Apostle , 2 Cor. 5. 10. [ That every Man may receive the things done in the Body ] doth imply , That as the things were done in the Body , so also the Reward must be received in the Body . As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of , it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked , until the Resurrection , Therefore it is not probable , that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant . What-ever some new Philosophers may say , true Philosophy ( I think ) doth tell us , That it is the Body , which by the Sensitive Soul doth ●eel pain ; even as it is the Eye , which doth see by the Visive Faculty .

You observe not ( it seems ) that I did but answer your Queries , Ibid. which you made Append. p. 10. To the second , [ When should he have risen ? ] I thought , and still think it sufficient to answer , That Adam , and so others , should either have risen in the end of the World , as now they shall , or when God should please to raise them . It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other .

How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection , which he speaks of , unto all , when he expresly limits it to those that are Christs ? vers. 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory ? Maccov . de statu primi ho. Disp. 5. Expressè resurrectio Christi est causa resurrectionis eorum , qui ad Vitam Eternam suscitabuntur , 1 Cor. 15. 20 , 21 , 22. To the same purpose also is that 1 Thess. 4. 14. &c. What the other Texts you speak of be , when you shew , I may consider then . This I grant , That the Wicked shall rise by the Power of Christ as Mediator , John 5. 28 , 29. But that is not enough to prove , That had not Christ been Mediator , there should have been no Resurrection ; no more than it follows , that otherwise none should have been condemned for sin , because no● all Judgment is committed unto Christ , John 5. 22 , 27.

I see no such difference betwixt them . Ibid. For slaying before the foundation of the World , 7. 24. cannot be meant of actual slaying , but only of fore-ordaining to be slain .

I mean Christ's Sufferings , Ibid. as in obedience to his Father he submitted unto them . This Commandment have I received of my Father , said he , John 10. 18. Sufferings simply considered without Obedience , find no acceptance with God . No need therefore to except against the Phrase commonly used , Vide Gataker cont. Gomarum p. 14 , 15. [ Passive Obedience ] i. e. Obedience in Suffering . Christ had a Commandment to lay down his Life , it was the Will of his Father that he should do it , and in obedience thereto he did it .

The Rule ( A quatenus ad omne , Ibid. &c. ) doth not here make for you , Ibid. 56. because it was not Christ's suffering meerly as obedience , but as such obedience , viz. Obedience in suffering , that was satisfactory . So that neither Suffering without Obedience , nor Obedience without Suffering would avail . Sed quae non prosunt singula , juncta juvant .

If only such Obedience be meant Rom. 5. 19. as is opposed to Adam's disobedience , Ibid. and therefore Active Obedience is meant , it will follow that only Active Obedience is meant , which you will not admit , because Adam's Disobedience was only Active . But Christ's Obedience in Suffering , may be opposed to Adam's Disobedience in Acting ; and Christ's Passive Obedience ( suffer me to speak so ) may stand in opposition to Disobedience in general , as working a contrary effect , viz. Whereas Disobedience doth make Sinful , Christ's ( Passive ) Obedience doth make Righteous ; and in that respect only doth the Apostle oppose Christ's Obedience to Adam's Disobedience .

1. The Apostle saying , 10 That Christ was made under the Law , Ibid. it seems to be without doubt , That it was the Will of God that he should observe the Law . 58. For is it not the Will of God that his Law should be observed by such as are under it ? Yet Christ might observe the Law for some ends peculiar to himself , as for those ends he was made under it . Christ according to the flesh was a Jew , therefore meet it was he should observe the Jewish Law , otherwise he had been an offence unto them . 2. As Christ was not made Man for himself , so ( it is true ) he was not bound to observe the Law for himself . But thus you should not limit it to some Works ; for all his Works were so for us , as he was nobis natus , nobis datus , Isa. 9. 6. Yet being made Man , as Man he was bound ( I think ) to perform that Obedience which God did require of Man . You say , That he used the Legal Ceremonies to shew his subjection : So say I ; and this ( I think ) is against you , it being meant of such subjection as the Law required of all those that were under it . 3. If Christ were sub Lege , as the Apostle saith he was , then it was ex Lege that he observed those legal rites . Yet , I grant , it was ex vi sponsionis propriae ; so all that he did , so his very being made Man was . Whereas you say , [ Else the Law would have obliged him to the act and end together ] ; I Answer , The Law doth oblige , according to the Will of the Law-giver , who might oblige Christ to it otherwise than he did others . I think the Ceremonial Observances , besides the Typical Nature of them , are to be considered as Religious Rites , whereby God was honoured and worshipped ; and so Christ as Man was obliged unto them , Man being bound to honour and worship God , so as God doth require of him . That which you add of the burthen of Penal Actions , seems impertinent ; For Penal Actions ( I think ) have the nature of Sufferings , and so they concern not the Point in Controversie betwixt us , which is only concerning Actions as Pious , not as Penal .

Your Reasons drawn from the Actions of Christ , Ibid. 11. 9. 59. receiving their chief Dignity from his chief Nature , &c. will reach further ( I think ) than you intend or desire , even to make all Christ's Active Righteousness to be satisfactory for us . And so indeed you seem to hold , Aph. p. 61. where you say , [ The Interest of the Divine Nature in all the Works of Christ , maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and satisfactory ] . Yet here , p. 10. you seem to restrain it to Penal Actions , and the burthen of tedious Ceremonious Worship , as you call it . For my part , I yet think ; That as the Holiness of Christ's Nature , so also the Holiness of his Life was requisite to qualifie him for suffering , and ( by suffering ) satisfying for us . Him that knew on sin , God made sin for us , 2. Cor. 5. ult. Such an High-Priest became us , who is holy , harmless , &c. Heb. 7. 26. Mr. Blake ( whose Judgment I do much value , though I cannot force mine own further than I am convinced ) in this Point , concerning the Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness , seems to differ both from you and me ; Of the Coven . c. 12. p. 78. he saith , [ Christ had been innocent , though he had never come under the Law to have yeelded that obedience ] . But how Christ could have continued innocent , without yeelding obedience to the Law ; or how being Man , he could be exempt from that Law , whereby the Creature is to shew his subjection to the Creator , I cannot see . He adds , [ His Person had not been as ours under the Law , unless of his own accord he had been made under the Law ] . He was not made Man ( say I ) but of his own accord ; Vide Gatakerum nosturm adversus Lucium , Respons. ad vindic . yet being Man , I conceive it was necessary that he should be under that Law which God imposed upon Man , and so both under the Moral Law , as the eternal Rule of Righteousness ; and also under the Ceremonial Law , as the prescribed Rule of Worship . He adds further , [ Somewhat might be said for the subjection of the Humane Nature in Christ , Part. 2. the Manhood of Christ , which was a Creature , but the Person of Christ , Sect. 7. pag. 54. &c. Et contra Gomarum p. 4. & 22. God-Man , seems to be above subjection ] . This I confess seems strange to me ; for the Humane Nature of Christ , though personally united to the Divine Nature , being still a Creature , must needs be in subjection to him that made it ; and therefore the Person of Christ , God-Man , though not as God , but as Man , must be under subjection . He goes on saying , [ We know the mortality of the Humane Nature , yet Christ bad never died , unless he had made himself obedient unto death ; neither needed to have served , unless he had humbled himself , Phil. 2. to take upon him the form of a Servant ] . But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Humane Nature , as subjection unto God is ; and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man , did es nomine take upon him the form of a Servant ; for Man must be Servant unto God , the Creature to the Creator . He bids , [ See the Assemblies Confession of Faith , Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies Speeches upon it ] . These Speeches I cannot now see , but I have seen them long ago , and was not satisfied with them . The words of the Assembly are such , as that some question may be made of the meaning of them , viz. Whether by [ Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself ] be not meant one and the same thing , so that the latter words are exegetical to the former . But to return to you , who say , [ The Question should be , Whether it be only Poena Christi , or Obedientia also , that satisfieth and meriteth ] ? I think it is not simply Poena , or Obedientia , but Poena Obedientialis , and Obedientia Poenalis .

1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature , and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious . Ibid. 60. 2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious , though less properly . 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect , yet if absolutely due , it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious .

The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions : Ibid. Yet see not how Christ's good Actions ( I speak of meer Actions , Ibid. 61. which have no penality or suffering mixed with them ) could properly be meritorious , they being otherwise due , supposing Man had not sinned , and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him . Though I am not of their mind , who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate , though Man had never sinned ; yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been : Now hoc supposito , all Christ's meer Active Righteousness would have been due , but not his Passive Righteousness .

I have divers times told you , That when we speak of Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory , we are not to consider them meerly as Penal , but as Obediential also ; so that your long Section hath nothing against me .

My interpretation of these words , Ibid. [ The Father judgeth no Man ] containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father , 10. 65. neither can I admit any such exclusion ; but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain . He that doth a thing , yet not immediately by himself , but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it , may be said in some respect not to do it . When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread , he bad them go to Joseph , &c. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things , Joseph is to do all such matters . Yet Pharaoh indeed did all , though not immediately , but by Joseph . Your Arguments , p. 13. press not me , who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ's Mediatorship , and namely to his Kingly Office , to judge the World ; only I shewed what I took to be the meaning of those Texts , John 5. 22. & 27. Wherein I followed Jansenius and Maldonate , no absurd Expositors , though Papists . And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father , v. 22. In Patre nihil mutatum est , Calv. in John 5. 23. &c. Est enim ipse in Filio , & in eo operatur , Beza in eundem loc. saith Calvin . And so Beza , Negat Christus â Patre administrari hunc mundum , ita , viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur ; qui Patrem à Filio separabant , cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filii manifestati in carne mundum regat .

You seem to make the present death of Adam a part of the rigorous execution of the Law , 14. when you say , Ibid. 67. Aphor. p. 33. [ That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full , or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat , In the day that thou eatest , &c. I do not think ; for that would have prevented both the Being , the Sin , and the Suffering of his Posterity ] . How would this have been prevented , if Adam's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence , i. e. in the rigorous execution of it ? Therefore though you argue , That the words of the Threat were not so meant , as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full , yet your very Argument supposeth , That if the Sentence should have been so executed , Adam should presently have died . Now though Christ had not died , yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended , and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been : against this ( so far as I see ) you say nothing .

I desire to be as favourable an Animadverter as Truth will permit : Ibid. but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say , 11. 68. I do not see . If you had used the word [ Chastisements ] , it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion . For I shew that Chastisements are Punishments . And whereas you speak of my great oversight , it is indeed your great mistake ; for I did not take those words to express your Opinion , only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments ; this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion .