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.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 189.

The Law of Moses being nothing else but an external pattern of the in∣ternal Law of nature, printed in the heart of our first parents in their crea∣tion, after the image of God, consisting in holiness and righteousness, Ephes. 4. 24. The sum of the two Tables: It is called the Law of works, Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life, Lev. 18. 5. The Law of Moses, Acts 13. 39, &c.

[Reply 16] A whole heap of errors are here tumbled together.

1. It is no small error to make the Law of Moses to be nothing else but an external pattern of the internal Law of nature, seeing the Law of Moses was not given to innocent but to fallen Adam: and 2. It was not given to fallen Adam in that abstracted and separated sence from the Covenant of grace, as the internal Law of nature was to innocent Adam; but in a conjunct sence with the Covenant of grace, and as an inseparable part of it.

3. It appears by his confounding of things that differ, (1. by confounding of the Law of nature, with the Covenant of nature, and 2. by confounding the null••fied Covenant of nature, with the durable Covenant of grace, in the ten Commandments,) That as long as he doth thus confound these distinct Laws and Covenants, he cannot possibly be a sound teacher of sundry fundamen∣tal points in Divinity, especially he cannot be a sound teacher of the great point of Christs satisfaction, nor yet of that great point of a sinners justi∣fication.

4. It is another great error to make the Law of the Covenant of nature, made with Adam, to promise a life in heaven, seeing that Covenant was no o∣ther but a Covenant of nature, it promised no other life, but the confirmation of his natural concreated l••fe of moral perfect••ons, after the image and like∣ness of God, to be injoyed for ever in this world onely, in the sweet contents of an earthly paradise; Mr. Walker saith in his Doct. of the Sab. pag. 58. that man in the estate of innocency could not have any thought or meditations of glory in heaven, or studies to fit and sanct••fie himself fo•• the fruition thereof until Christ the onely way to eternal rest and glory was promised; and of this see more in Chap. 1. Sect. 4.

5. It is another great error to expound, Ephe. 4. 24. of Adams concreated * 1.1 holiness and righteousness, in the which Adam was created after the image of God, that was no other, but connatural holiness and righteousness, seeing it is no other but Gods supernatural holiness and righteousness, wrought in the heart by his regenerating Spirit. True holiness, saith Mr. Walker, on the Sab. pag. 39. 40, 41. is a gift of supernatural grace, given only in Christ, and pro∣ceeding from the holy Ghost, shed on man through Christ, and dwelling in them as the immortal seed of God; And (saith he) this holiness doth not belong to the natural image of God, wherein the first earthly Adam was created, but to the spiritual and heavenly image of the second Adam Christ, who is a quickning spirit, and the Lord from heaven, heavenly, whose image no man can bear, but in the state of regeneration, as it appears, by 1 Cor. 15. 45, 49. and Eph. 4. 23, 24. but see him more at large in the place cited, and mark his concluding wish, in pag. 41. If (saith he) it would please God to open the hearts of our people rightly to conceive this difference between the image of the first and second Adam, and between the natural created uprightness of Adam, and the spiritual uprightness, and infused holiness, wherein the second Adam was conceived and framed by the holy Ghost; it would ravish their hearts and fill them with admiration of the singular love of God to his elect in Christ, and of the singular excellency of the grace of holiness, and of those high pre∣rogatives which the regenerate receive and injoy through him, and which indeed do far exceed all that belonged to man in the state of inno∣cency.

6. It is another great error to affirm, that the two Tables is called the Law of works, in Rom. 3. 27. and that it required personal obedience * 1.2 to life; In this exposition of Rom. 3. 27. he doth again confound the Law of nature, and the Covenant of nature together, in the Decalogue, which indeed had no dependance on each other as I have formerly shewed; 2. he

doth also confound the life promised in the Covenant of nature with the life promised in the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue; but I have shewed that they differ as much as a heavenly happiness, doth differ from an earthly hap∣piness. 3. The Law of works, in Rom. 3. 27. is meant onely of the typi∣cal Law of works that was given at mount Sinai, to be a teaching School∣master unto Christ; And I have also shewed before at Reply 11. and 14. that the Covenant made with Adam, is no where called the Law of works in all the Bible.

7. I have shewed before at Reply 12. that the Levitical worship (under wh••ch the whole oeconomy of Moses is included) is called the Law of works, and that it was ordained for their sanctified walking, and for the just••fication of their bodies from their ceremonial sins; But the false Apostles (from the example of their ancient carnal forefathers) made an addition thereto, out of their own su∣perstitious conceits; namely, that the said works of the Law were ordained not only for the justification of their bodies from their ceremonial sins, but also for the justificat••on of their souls from their moral sins, and in that respect it was, that they did most vehemently urge the believing Gentiles to observe the said works of the Law, as a necessary condition to be joyned to their faith in Christ, for the obtaining of their souls justification from all kind of sin; but the Apo∣stle Paul did constantly oppose this last use of the works of the Law; and did as constantly affirm, that God required no other condition to be performed on the sinners part, for the obtaining of his moral justification, but faith only, in the meritorious death and sacrifice of Christ, as the onely procuring cause of Gods atonement, and forgiveness for their formal justification; But secondly Mr. Norton doth again repeat his said Exposition, in pag. 177. The Law (saith he) as it was written in the heart of Adam (and the ten Commandments) is called the Law of works, in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal and per∣fect obedience thereunto as the condition of our justification, but it cannot be proved that ever God ordained this way of justification, either in the time of Adams innocency, or since the fall. But in my former Reply, I have suf∣ficiently confuted this assertion, it being but the same in substance with the former, save onely that he makes the ten Commandments to be the Law of the Covenant of nature which I have also confuted, in Chap. 1. and elsewhere.

8. It is another great error to cite the Law of Moses, in Act. 13. 39. for the Law of the Covenant of nature made with Adam, which he doth falsly stile the Covenant of works for a sinners justification; But in case he had made the Law of Moses to comprehend the Law of works at mount Sinai, for the Jews bodily justification, and for a typical pattern, or for a teaching School-master unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; I should most gladly have concurred with that sense, for I do freely grant, that the two Tables (as they comprehend all the oeconomy of Moses) is by the figure Synecdoche cal∣led the Law of works, but not in any relation at all to Master Nortons sense of the Covenant made with Adam, for the holy Ghost knew well enough that that transient Covenant was utterly extinguished as soon as ever Adam had broken it by his once eating of the forbidden fruit.

2. Master Calvin (and others) expound Act. 13. 39. of the ceremo∣nial * 1.3 Law chiefly, and to that sense doth the context most cleerly carry it; for in vers. 38. the Apostle speaks thus; Through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins, and this forgiveness, in vers. 39. is said to justifie all that believe, from all things (namely, from all those moral sins) from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses; implying that they might be justified from some things by the Law of Moses, namely, from their ceremonial sins by the typical works of Moses Law, but implying also, that they could not be justified from their moral sins by the said works of Moses Law, as the false Apostles taught they might; But saith the Apostle, in vers. 30. By him all that believe are justified from all those moral sins, from which ye could not be justified, by the typical works of Moses Law: and thus he doth assign their justification, onely to the condition of their believing in Christ who was the onely procuring cause of his Fathers forgiveness to believing sinners, for their formal justification, as in vers. 38. In these verses the A∣postle doth teach such are willing to learn the true nature of justifica∣tion.

But I suppose it will be also expected, that I should shew in what sense the two Tables may be called the Law of works.

First, I will briefly answer in the words of Mr. Sh••pard, that the Apostle * 1.4 speaketh, in 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7, 11, 13. of a Law engraven in stone, which is now abolished by Christ in the Gospel (not as it is a rule of life,) but saith he the meaning of this place is (as the former, in Gal. 3. 25.) that the Apostle speaking of the moral Law doth by a Synecdoche comprehend the ce∣remonial also, hoth which the false teachers in those times urged▪ as necessary to salvation, and justification, at least together with Christ against whom the Apostle doth here dispute; the moral Law therefore (saith he) is abolished, first, as thus accompanied with a yoak of ceremonies, this Reason doth in part hit the nail; for the second Commandment, and the fourth, doth command the observation of all the ceremonial Law; but secondly, I also adde that the two Tables do in some other respects also appertain to the typical Covenant, or Law of works, for God ordained that certain sins against the moral Law, should defile the bodies of the national Church ceremonially; and in that re∣spect God did also ordain a ceremonial cleansing of their bodies, from the cere∣monial defilements of their, moral sins, of which I have spoken more at large, in Chap. 6. Sect. 6. and something also before at R••ply 13. ult.

But still Master Norton doth misinterpert, the word Law, in pag. 191.

The particle by, saith he, in Gal. 2. 21. notes the manner, not the matter; obedience (saith he) unto the Law, neither ceaseth nor can cease to be the matter of our justification.

[Reply 17] These words [By the Law] are most palpably misinterpreted; for the argu∣ment which I drew from this text, in my Dialogue, in pag. 108. was to * 1.5 this sense, if righteousness come by the Law, that is to say, by Christs mo∣ral obedience imputed, Then Christ made his oblation in vain.

Mr. Norton doth thus Answer, The particle [by] notes the manner, not

the matter. I Reply, 1: that it doth not, nor cannot note Mr. Nortons kind of matter, for there is no such matter in being for Christ to fulfil (as the first Covenant made with Adam,) But in the second place I Reply, that these words by the Law, doth note the matter of that condition, which the Law re∣quired to be performed by the national Church, for their bodily justification from their ceremonial sins, for by the word Law here is meant the matter of the typical works of the Law, which the Jews were commanded (at mount Sinai) to perform for their bodily just••fication; and so Luther doth expound these words▪ If righteousness come by the Law; that is (saith he) by the works * 1.6 of the Law.

The false Apostles taught the believing Gentiles, that it was of necessity for them to observe the works of the Law, as well as to believe in Christ, for the ob∣taining of their justification from moral sins, as well as from ceremonial sins;

But the Apostle affirms the contrary, in vers. 20. namely, that the onely condition, that was required to be performed on the sinners part, for his moral justification, was no other, but his faith in Christ, the onely mediator or pro∣curer of Gods atonement and forgiveness.

2. The Dialogue argument is sound and good; and it is much approved by men of sounder principles.

1. It is much approved, by Pareus, and 2. by Mr. Gataker in his Answer * 1.7 to Mr. Walkers Vindication, in pag. 13. 91, 107, 110, 136. and also in his Answer to Gomarus, pag. 8. 19, 20, 37, 38, 39. and by Pareus again, in his Epistle to Count Whitgeustenius, and by sundry other Orthodox writers which I could easily cite if it were needful, as Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Rutherford already cited, in Reply 15.

3. These words by the Law, do comprehend the whole Law; for neither Paul, nor yet the false Apostles did exclude any part of the oeconomy of Moses, out of this word Law; The Covenant of grace at mount Sinai, was dispensed after such a legal manner, that it taught them to observe an outward sanctification in the whole course of their lives; and 2. In case of ceremo∣nial sin, it taught them to observe the works of the Law, for their bodily ju∣stification, from their said ceremonial sins, and according to this last sense of the word Law, the Apostle doth argue, in Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness (or justification from moral sins,) come by the works of the Law, then Christ died in vain; and according to this last sense of the word Law, the false A∣postles insisted most, namely, on the Law of rites; but yet not excluding any other part of the Law:

4. The Apostle doth argue to this very sense, in Gal. 3. 21. if there * 1.8 had been a Law given, which could have given life, namely, justification to life, surely, (or verily▪) righteousness, (i.e. justification from all sin) should have been by the Law, namely, by the works of the Law onely, and by no other means, namely, not by faith in Christ; for where any one sin∣gle means is ordained to attain▪ the end infallibly, there it is altogether needless and useless to ordain any other means; The force of the Apostles Reason in vers. 21. lies thus; Is the Law then against the promises? God forbid, for if there had been a Law given which could have given life ex opere

operato by doing the outward works of it; verily justification (to life from moral sins as well as from ceremonial sins) should have been by the said works of the Law, and then the Law should have been against the pro∣mises (of justification and salvation by faith in Christ death onely) for it is the proper office of Christ promised to die, and to give that life that brings the soul to heaven; and then the Law had been against the pro∣mises, and had taken its work out of Christs hand; but yet I have often shewed that the Law, namely, that the typical works of the Law were or∣dained onely for the bodily justification of the national Church from their ceremonial sins, and so consequently their bodily life was thereby preserved which else would have been cut off, in case they went into the holy temple in their unjustified condition, namely, in their ceremonial sins.

In this last sense, the Law is not opposite to the promise, but it is ad∣ded to the promise, as the type is added to the truth, as a teaching School∣master unto Christ, that so we might be just••fied from our moral sins by (performing the condition of) faith in Christ, and not by performing the works of the Law.

5. The Apostle doth also argee to this very sense, in Gal. 5. 4. Christ * 1.9 is then become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you, are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace; from hence it follows, that in case it were possible for any fallen son of Adam, to keep the moral Law of na∣ture as perfectly as Adam did in the time of his innocency, yet it could not justifie him, from the guilt of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, for that sin was no sin against the moral Law of nature, and there∣fore the perfection of the moral Law of nature, wherein Adam was created did not keep him from sinning against the transient positive Law of the Covenant of nature; which doth plainly prove that that transient posi∣tive Law, was no part of the moral Law of his nature, for in case it had, then Adam could not by any temptation have been perswaded to break it, because he was made after the image & likeness of God in moral perfections, and 2. because the whole Law at mount Sinai, was given for another end, namely, to be a School-master to Christ; this reason will hold if the truth of the Scriptures will hold.

6. Luther denies the righteousness of the moral Law to be the matter * 1.10 of a sinners justification; for thus he doth argue, If Christ suffered not in vain, Gal. 2. 21. thence it followeth of necessity, that righteousness cometh not by the Law; 2. saith he, Paul speaketh not of the ceremo∣nial Law onely, as the Papists do continually dream, but of the moral Law also, or of the Law of the ten Commandments, wherein is contained the most perfect Religion, and the highest service of God.

3. Saith he, in the close of that Section, without grace, and without Christ I finde no righteousness, either in my self, or in the Law, (i.e. in no part of the Law, no not in the moral Law,)

4. Saith he, in the next Section, we do constantly affirm with Paul, that either Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. 21. or else the Law justifieth not, for if the Law could have justified us, then Christ had done un∣wisely,

in that he gave himself for our sins, that we might thereby be ju∣stified; we conclude therefore (saith he) that we are not justified by our own works; [nor yet by the Law;] Iuther in these words and in many other places doth affirm, that sinners are justified by the passive obedience of Christ, not by his active moral righteousness: he denies that to be the matter of a sinners justification.

5. Saith he, in the next Section, how can I buy that for a farthing which cost many Talents of gold; the Law (saith he) and all the works, and righteousness thereof, is but as a farthing, if you compare it unto Christs (death) who by his death hath vanquished my death, and hath [thereby] parchased righteousness and everlasting life; should I then reject this incomparable price, and by the Law and the works thereof, seek that righteousness which Christ freely, and of meer love hath given to me already; and which cost him so great a price that he was constrained to give himself, even his own heart blood for me.

6. Saith he, this righteousness, neither mans Law, nor Gods Law is able to perform, mark I pray how he doth still place the righteousness of sinners, not in the righteousness of the moral Law, but wholly in the me∣ritorious cause of Christs death.

7. Luther doth by way of Prosopopeia, speak thus to the believing Gentiles, in Gal. 2. 23. well, though thou be never so barren and forsa∣ken, not having the righteousness of the Law; yet notwithstanding Christ is thy righteousness; he was made a curse for thee, to deliver thee from the curse of the Law; if thou believest in him the Law is dead to thee; and look how much Christ (in his said cursed death) is greater then the Law; so much hast thou a more excellent righteousness, then the righteousness of the Law; and saith Luther, in Gal. 3. 19. pag. 155. when we reason as touching righteousness, life, and everlasting salvation, the Law must be utterly removed out of our sight, as if it had never been, or never should be; but as though it were nothing at all; for in the matter of justification, no man can remove the Law far enough out of his sight; or behold the onely promise of God sufficiently, as he should do, and saith he, in vers. 27. as many ••are justified therefore, are justified not by the observation of mans Law, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Gods Law; but by Christ a∣lone, who hath abolished all Laws; hi•• ••one doth the Gospel set forth unto us, as a pacifier of Gods wrath, by th•• ••••edding of his own blood, and saith he, in vers. 18. ult. hypocrites think 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the office of the Law, is to justifie; this is the general opinion of mans 〈◊〉〈◊〉 among the Sophisters through the whole world, that righteousness is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 through the works of the Law, because they understand not the righ••••••••sness of faith, and see much more cited from Luther, in Chap. 4. N^o. 6.

8. Saith he, in Sect. 3. Paul speaketh here, (in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••. 27.) espe∣cially of the abolishment of the moral Law, which is 〈…〉〈…〉 be con∣sidered; for saith he, he speaketh against the righteousness 〈…〉〈…〉, that he might establish the righteousness of faith; and then he co••cludes

it thus; if onely grace and faith in Christ doth justifie, then is the whole Law abolished, without any exception, and in pag. 223. he explaineth his meaning thus, we say, that the moral Law of the ten Commandments hath no power to accuse and terrifie the conscience, in which Jesus Christ doth reign by his grace, he hath abol shed the power thereof.

9. Luther in that Commentary on the Galatians doth never apply a believing sinners justification to any moral righteousness; it seems that matter of a sinners righteousness was not at all known to him; But still he makes the death of Christ to be the procuring cause of Gods forgive∣ness, and faith in Christ to be the condition that must be performed on the sinners part, for his justification from sin; this I finde to be Luthers constant judgement.

10. Luther saith, in Gal. 4. 4. Sect. 11. whereas Christ in the Gospel giveth Commandments, and teacheth the Law, or rather expoundeth it, in Mat. 5. 17, 18. This pertaineth not to the Doctrine of justification, * 1.11 but of good works.

From this text of Matt. 5. 17, 18. Luther denies the Doctrine of ju∣stification to lie in the active righteousness of the Law; But Mr. Norton on the contrary doth expound this text, and that in Gal. 4. 4. of Christs fulfilling the moral Law of nature, for our justification, in pag. 192. 197, 213, 240, 267. and moreover (saith Luther) it is not the proper office of Christ (for which he came principally into the world) to teach the Law, but an accidental or by office, like as it was to heal the weak, and to raise up the dead, &c. these indeed are excellent and Divine works, but yet not the very proper and principal works of Christ; and saith he, a few lines after, To teach the Law, and to work miracles are particular be∣nefits of Christ, for the which he came not principally into the world (but to suffer death for mans redemption.)

11. Saith he, in vers. 27. fol. 175. and 275. Christ is no Law, no Law-giver, no work, but a Divine, and inestimable gift, whom God hath given to us, that he might be our justifier, our Saviour and Redeemer; wherefore to be apparalled with Christ, according to the Gospel, is not to be * 1.12 apparalled with the Law, or with works but with an in∣estimable gift; That is to say, with remission of sins, righteous∣ness, peace, consolation, joy of the spirit, salvation, life, and Christ himself.

12. It is also observed by Mr. Wotton that the imputation of righte∣ousness often mentioned by Luther in his Commentary on the Gal. is meerly remission of sins, and Gods accepting us thereby, as if we were righteous, &c. de Recons. pec. part. 1. cap. 2. cap. 5. Luther doth per∣emptorily deny justification to be effected in a sinner, by the righteous∣ness of the Law; and assirmeth it to consist in Gods gracious forgive∣ness:

which he doth also call the imputation of righteousness as many others do.

But saith Mr. Norton, in pag. 225.

Abraham was made partakers of the righteousness of the moral Law, or of the Law of works by faith without works, 1. because no man can at∣tain eternal life, without fulfilling the Law, either in himself, or in his surety; without the righteousness of the Law there is no life, Lev. 18. 5. Deu. 27. 26. Eze. 20. 11. Gal. 3. 10.

[Reply 18] I have abundantly shewed, that this matter of a sinners justification by the righteousness of the moral Law (••n the Covenant made with Adam) is a meer non ens, because that covenant, and consequently the positive Law of it was utterly extinguished as soon as ever Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit, and received the threatned punishment of a two∣fold spiritual death; and therefore it is no better then a meer fiction to affirm that Abraham was made partakers of this nullified matter of righte∣ousness by his faith; 2. It is another fiction, to affirm that Christ was Abrahams surety, to do that extinguished Law of works, and to suffer the Essential punishment of that threatned double spiritual death, for the ful∣filling of that nullified Law. 3. It is another fiction, to affirm that with∣out the righteousness of this extinguished Law, there is no life. 4. This word life must be distinguished, and not confounded as the same in both Covenants.

5. From thence it doth also follow, that his former Scriptures which he hath cited, to prove his said fictions, are cited for no other end, but to take Gods name so often in vain; for first, I have given the true sense of Lev. 18. 5. In my former Printed Reply, and in this book also. 2. I have also expounded the rest of his Scriptures in this Treatise of such a kind of doing as belongs only to the Covenant of grace, by faith in Christ onely, and not of that bodily doing, by eating of the tree of life, that was required of Adam in the Covenant of nature.

But saith Mr. Norton, in pag. 225.

The matter of righteousness consisteth in conformity to the Law; and you may (saith he) as well say that a man may be learned without learning, or that be may be a man without a reasonable soul, as say there is a created righteousness without conformity to the Law.

[Reply 19] I have often shewed, that the created righteousness of the moral Law of nature, was not ordained to be the matter of Adams obedience to the Co∣venant of nature, but that his transient act onely, of once eating of the two∣fold tree of life, should have been the means of his confirmation. 2. That it is a misleading error to call the Covenant of nature the Law of works. 3. That it is another misleading error, to hold the Covenant of nature to be still in being, and so consequently, it must of necessity be as great an error to hold the righteousness of it to be still in being for a sinners justi∣fication. 4. I say also, that as none can be a man without a reasonable soul, so none can be perfectly righteous in nature and life, as Adam was in his creation, without those concreated moral perfections (wherein Adam

was created) be restored, which never was, nor never shall be in this World, because Gods definitive sentence of death, in Gen. 2. 17. cannot be reversed: but in case it could be supposed, that the said sentence might be reversed, and that those concreated moral perfections might be resto∣red, yet those concreated perfections of nature should not benefit any man, so far as to give them a right to Heaven, it should but give them a per∣fect natural life in this World, in the sweet contents of an earthly Para∣dise; and therefore Mr. Nortons created righteousness, which he doth contend for as the matter of a sinners justification, is but a meer fiction, seeing God in the Covenant of grace and reconciliation hath ordained no other righteousness for the justification of sinners, but a supernatural negative righteousness only, by Gods atonement and forgiveness procured for believing sinners by the death of Christ; and this atonement so pro∣cured is that righteousness, that the typical works of the Law do continu∣ally teach us to look at as our Schoolmaster to Christ.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 225.

The reason is, because the Scripture saith, The righteousness of the Law, that is (that righteousness) which the Law requireth, is fulfilled in us that believe, Rom. 10. 4. And saith he a few lines after, The righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, because we by faith apprehend the obedience of Christ, who fulfilled the Law for us.

[Reply 20] It is an extream great error in Mr. Norton, all along to interpret the moral Law in the Decalogue, to be the matter of Adams obedience to the first Covenant of nature.

I have abundantly shewed with the concurrence of good Authors, that the moral Law of nature was not the matter of the first Covenant of na∣ture: and 2. That that Covenant is not now in being: and from thence it followes, that the righteousness of it is not in being.

2. That righteousness which the Law requireth for the justification of believing sinners, is Gods reconciled forgiveness only, as I have shewed in Chap. 15. Chap. 16. And

3. Saith he, most vain is the shift of the Dialogue, endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place, in Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting it against text, context, and Scripture [The righteousness of the Law] only of the righteousness that was typified by the ceremonial Law; that indeed is no righteousness, but a non ens, as having no essential matter.

To this I reply, by retorting his words more truly against himself: Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton, endeavouring to avoid the strength of this text, in Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting it against text, context, and * 1.13 Scripture, of the righteousness of that nullified Covenant that was made with Adam: for indeed that is no righteousness, but a non ens, having now no essential matter; seeing that Covenant hath been utterly extin∣guished, ever since Adam did but taste of the forbidden fruit; and no∣thing of it doth now remain, but the threatned punishment of a twofold Spiritual death to all the natural posterity of Adam to the end of the world.

4. I have expounded the righteousness of the Law, in Rom. 10. 4. of the whole oeconomy of Moses in my former printed Reply, in pag. 242, 243. though yet I do make the Law of rites to be chiefly meant by the figure Synecdoche; and I believe I have put the matter out of doubt, by proving that the Jews legal justifications, by the blood of Bulls and Goats, &c. were ordained to typifie the death and sacrifice of Christ, as the perfecting end of all Moses Law, for the procuring of Gods atone∣ment and forgiveness, for the formal justification of all believers from all their moral sins, from the which they could not be justified by the said typical works of Moses Law, Acts 13. 39. and to this sence also I have expounded Dan. 9. 24.

5. It is yet further evident by Tit. 2. 14. that Christ gave himself for * 1.14 us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie to himself a pe∣culiar people. In these words, Redemption from iniquity, and purifyi••g from sin, is all one with Justifying us from sin; and this justification from sin was procured or brought to pass by Christs passive obedience in his death, and not by his active moral obedience in the course of his life, by his passive obedience in his death he procured Gods atonement and for∣giveness, Rom. 5. 10, 11. which atonement and forgiveness is the only for∣mal cause of redemption from all iniquity, and of purifying or justifying all believers from all their moral sins: and in this sence only Christ is called, The end of the Law for justification to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. and to this sence I did first open this Scripture in my Dia∣logue.

6. Doctor Alle in his Poor mans Library, fol. 94. saith, that Jacobus de Valentia held, that the old Law was nothing else but a certain way, di∣recting and leading unto Christ, Tanquam infinem immedlatum, as to the very end of the Law, (Rom. 10. 4.) therefore, saith he, the Law never asketh the kingdom of Heaven, but always desireth (or asketh after) Christ, which teacheth the way to the Kingdom of Heaven, For Christ is the door, John 10. the way and the truth, John 14. 6.

7. Mr. Jeanes saith, in the Fulness of Christ, pag. 9. that Christ was full of truth, John 1. 14. because he made good the prefigurations of the ceremonial Law; For in them there was an emptiness, because they were but shadows or figures, Col. 2. 17. but in him they were fulfilled, perfected, and accomplished; and thereupon (saith he) he is tearmed, The end of the Law, in Rom. 10. 4.

This exposition given in my Book Mr. Norton calls a non ens; but I have shewed a little before, that he halts of his own sore.

8. Luther saith in his Argument to Gal. fol. 6. The Law hath its bounds unto Christ, as Paul saith afterwards, The Law continueth unto Christ, Rom. 10. 4. who being come, Moses ceaseth with his Law, circumcision, sa∣crifices, sabbaths, yea, and all the Prophets. Luther in these words doth ex∣pound Rom. 10. 4. of Christs being the end of the ceremonial Law, and also of the Prophets, in his fulfilling of their predictions: yet he doth not exclude, but doth include the whole Law of Moses, as a rule of sanctified walking in the Covenant of grace.

9. Mr. Gataker in his Animadversions on Gomarus, p. 52. doth reject Mr. Nortons interpretation of the word Law, in Rom. 10. 4. he calls that ex∣position of the moral Law, a forced interpretation.

Mr. Norto•• hath as much erred also in his exposition of the word Law, in Gal. 4. 4.

He expounds it of the moral Law of nature, as it was given to Adam,

1. For a Covenant of works, and 2. For an eternal life in Heaven, in pag. 103, 192, 196, 200, 240.

[Reply 21] I have already shewed, that the Covenant made with Adam, was not made with him in relation to his obedience to the moral Law of his na∣ture, but in relation to his transient act of obedience, in eating but once only of the Tree of the twofold life; and I have also shewed, that that Covenant hath been utterly extinguished, ever since Adam received the threatned punishment of a double Spiritual death.

2. The word Law in Gal. 4. 4. must be understood of the whole Law, and yet of the La•• of rites chiefly by the figure Synecdoche, as I have also noted it in my former printed Reply, p. 47. 120.

3. That the life promised in the Covenant of nature was not an eternal life in Heaven.

4. Mr. Norton hath as much erred in his exposition of the word Law, in sundry other places in his Book, as in pag. 140, 149, 191, 199, 212, 225, &c. but I have vindicated the true sence of all those places, in my exposition of Gal. 3. 10. where the Reader may be satisfied.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Eph. 4. 24.
• * 1.2

  Rom. 3. 27.
• * 1.3

  Act. 13. 38, 39.
• * 1.4

  2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. In his Thesis on the Sab. p. 77 The two tables do in some sense belong to the typical Law of works.
• * 1.5

  Gal. 2. 21.
• * 1.6

  In his Choyse Sermons on Joh. 6. p. 227.
• * 1.7

  Pareus de ju∣stitia Christi activae & passivae.
• * 1.8

  Gal. 3. 21.
• * 1.9

  Gal. 5. 4.
• * 1.10

  Gal. 2. 21. Luther denies the moral obi∣dience of Christ to be the matter of a sinners justification he makes the pas∣sive obedience of Christ to be the only procu∣ring cause of a sinners justifi∣cation.
• * 1.11

  Mat. 5. 17, 18.
• * 1.12

  Luther saith, that the gar∣ment of righteousness according to the Gospel, is not to be apparalled with the Law, or with works: But with remission of sins which for Christ his sake is given to believing sinners, for their perfect righteousness.
• * 1.13

  Rom. 10. 4.
• * 1.14

  Tit. 2. 14.