The covenant of nature made with Adam described and cleared from sundry great mistakes. And thereby proving, I. That the kind of death that was threatned in that covenant, in Gen. 2.17. ought not to be understood of any other kind of death but of a double spiritual death, 1. By depriving Adam of Gods concreated image: and 2. By corruption of nature that followed thereupon. II. Proving that the said covenant was totally extinguished and made utterly null, as soon as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit, and received the said threatned punishment. III. Expounding Gal. 3.10. and proving that the curse therein threatned must not be understood of the curse of the said covenant of nature, but of that curse that is threatned in the covenant of grace to the fallen posterity of Adam, for their not doing of Moses law by faith in Christ, which was given to them for the covenant of grace and reconciliation only. ... VIII. Expounding Rom. 8.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8. in ch. 25. By William Pynchon.

Therefore Christs performance of the Law is given to Adam in in∣nocency, (whatsoever its extent be more or less, as given to him after the fall) received by faith, is that whereby we are justified evangeli∣cally.

[Reply 7] I deny both the propositions, because they are builded upon a twofold false foundation; 1. In affirming that the Law of the Covenant of nature was made with Adam in relation to his obedience to the concreated moral Law of his nature: and 2. In affirming that the said Law of the Covenant of nature is yet in being in the ten Commandments, as the only matter of a sinners justi∣fication.

But I believe I have sufficiently confuted both these assertions; namely,

1. That the moral Law, as it was written in Adams heart and mind, was not given to be performed as the condition of the Covenant of nature, but that it was given only as a meer Law, without any promise or threatning annexed thereunto.

2. I have shewed that the Covenant of nature was fully extinguished, and made totally null, as soon as Adam had but tasted the forbidden fruit, and that nothing of it doth now remain, but the execution of that threatned punish∣ment of a double Spiritual death to Adam and to all his natural posterity to the worlds end.

3. I have shewed that the promise that was annexed to the Covenant of na∣ture was no other, but the confirmation of Adams concreated life after Gods image in moral perfections, in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise to all eternity: but there is no such promise as this annexed to the ten Command∣ments, therefore the ten Commandments do not comprehend that Covenant of nature that was made with Adam: but on the contrary the promise that is annexed to the ten Commandments, is nothing else but the promise of the Covenant of grace and reconciliation; namely, it is the promise of an eternal life in Heaven to all believers, and the threatning is an eternal death in Hell to all that live and die in the unbelief of their redemption by the promised seed of the woman; and no such threatning as this is annexed to the Covenant of nature.

4. I purpose to shew ere long, that the moral Law of nature was not or∣dained to be the matter of Adams justification to an eternal life in Heaven; but to be the rule of his concreated life after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections in this world only, and therefore that it ought not to be cal∣led the matter of a sinners justification, in case the world Justification be right∣ly understood for the justification of believing sinners, to the state of an eter∣nal life in Heaven.

5. Mr. Norton doth exclude from the matter of a sinners just••fication what∣soever the Dialogues extent is, more or less, then what was contained in the Law of the Covenant of nature as given to Adam; and I have shewed, that that matter is nothing else but a non ens now, and that at first it was no more but a transient act of positive obedience in eating first of the Tree of the twofold life.

Conclusion from the premises.

1. From hence it followes, that Mr. Nortons said proposition and assumpti∣on are builded only upon a twofold false foundation, and therefore are no bet∣ter then meer fallacies and fictions of his own brain.

2. From hence it doth also follow, that the Dialogue argument, taken from the not engraving of faith in Adams heart in the time of his creation, is of

sufficient force to prove that the tearm Moral Law, as it relates only to the mo∣ral Law of Adams nature, is very unfitly applied to the ten Commandments, as the general title of their true scope and aim, seeing the ten Commandments were given to fallen Adam for no other Covenant, but that of grace and re∣conciliation only, either in type, or in the thing typified; but the moral Law of nature was given to Adam for no Covenant at all, but only for the mo∣ral Law of his nature.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 182.

The Law at mount Sinai admits of a threefold consideration.

1. As a Law of works obliging man unto a pure legal obedience, and accord∣ly to expect life or death.

2. As a rule of universal and absolute obedience, obliging man not only unto what was commanded at present, but also unto whatsoever should after∣wards be required.

3. As a Covenant of grace it self, though dispensed after a legal manner, com∣prehending the Law as a perpetual rule of righteousness, freed from its pure legal nature, of coaction, malediction, and justification by works.

And then in pag. 183. he doth thus explain these three assertions.

By the Law in the first consideration faith is not required.

In the second, man stands obliged to faith in Christ conditionally, when God shall call for it.

In the third, faith is not only required, but it is a part of our obedience.

[Reply 8] This threefold consideration of the Law at mount Sinai is so far from clear∣ing the true sence of it, that it doth utterly confound it.

1. Saith he, the Law at mount Sinai doth admit of a threefold considera∣tion * 1.1; namely, it admits of three differing sences, according to three differing and distinct kinds of Laws: But I have shewed on the word Death, in Chap. 1. Sect. 1. that one and the same word, whether it be the word Death, or the word Law, or an•• other word, in one and the same text of Scripture, can have but one proper sence. This assertion is a received maxim of a sound exposition: and from thence it followes, that the word Law at mount Sinai, in Exod. 24. 12. (with Mal. 4. 4.) cannot be taken for three distinct sorts of Laws, in three di∣stinct proper sences, nor yet for two distinct sorts of Covenants, as Mr. Norton doth expound it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  It is a great error to make the Law at mount Sinai to comprehend three distinct and differing kinds of Laws in a proper s••nce. See also Reply 3.