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.

CHAP. V. (Book 5)

Proving 1. That the Law at mount Sinai was given for no other Co∣venant, but of grace and reconciliation only; namely, in the Spiri∣tual sence of it.

2. Though it was given for a Law of works to the national Church, yet it was so done in a typical relation to the Covenant of grace only.

3. That the ten Commandments is called the Law of works, as it com∣prehends the typical Laws, but not in any relation at all to the Cove∣nant of nature that was made with Adam.

MR. Norton doth oppose my Dialogue in all these particulars.

1. I did in my Dialogue endeavour to prove, in pag. 103, 104, &c.

That the ten Commandments at mount Sinai, were given only for a Cove∣nant of grace and reconciliation; and there I gave these reasons to prove it.

1. Because our Saviour affirmed to the Scribe, that there were but two great Commandments in the Law, (namely, the first and second Tables) and that the whole Law and the Prophets do hang upon these two Commandments, Mat. * 1.1 22. 40.

From thence I did infer, that seeing the whole Law and the Prophets do hang upon the ten Commandments, as the general heads of all that is con∣tained in the Law and the Prophets, they must needs contain rules of faith in Christ.

2. Thence I did also infer, that therefore it is no way fit to call the Dec••∣l••gue * 1.2 the moral Law of nature, in an abstracted sence from the Covenant of grace; which is the great point that Mr. Norton strives for, as the only matter of a sinners justification.

3. Yet I granted in my Dialogue, that the ten Commandments may very fitly be called the moral Law, though not in relation to Adams perfect nature, yet in another respect; namely, in relation to the perpetual Covenant of grace, because the said ten Commandments do command faith in Christ, as well as rules of sanctified walking to all the subjects of that Covenant: and in this sence only Mr. Holyoke in his Doctrine of life, pag. 83. doth call it the moral Law, because it is the holy Law of Christ that shall last for ever.

4. It is no less then a fundamental error in Mr. Norton, 1. To confound the Law of nature with the Covenant of nature; and 2. To confound the Covenant of nature with the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue, seeing the Decalogue and the Covenant of nature were given for two apposite Covenants.

5. Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously, in p. 11. that we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self doth oblige us to fulfil the Covenant of works in our surety.

[Reply.] I think I have sufficiently replyed to this heterodox assertion, in Chap. 1. and Chap. 4. where I have shewed, that the Covenant of nature was not made with Adam in any relation at all to any branch of the moral Law of nature, but in

relation only to a meer arbitrary and transient positive Law, touching one sin∣gle bodily act of eating, either of the Tree of life for his confirmation, or of the forbidden fruit for his deprivation of Gods concreated image of moral per∣fections.

2. It is as sutable a Title to call all the Bible both the moral Law of nature, and the Covenant of nature also, as it is to call the ten Commandments so, see∣ing the ten Commandments is nothing else but the true substance of all the Law and Prophets: and 2. Because all the heads of the moral Law of nature may be e••tracted out of sundry places of the Bible, as well as out of the ten Commandments: and 2. The Covenant of nature being extinguished, it is not contained neither in the Decalogue, nor yet in any other part of the Bible, but in Gen. 2. 17. only.

6. I did in my said Dialogue likewise prove from the preface of the ten Com∣mandments, that they were given only in the form of a Covenant of grace and reconciliation: I am the Lord thy God, &c.

7. I did also shew from the four first Commandments, that the Law at mount Sinai was given by Christ, as the only Mediator of the Covenant of grace and reconciliation, for the conversion and salvation of believing sinners: and from thence I did infer, 1. That it is not fit to call the ten Commandments the mo∣ral Law of nature; and 2. That it is not fit to call the ten Commandments the Covenant of nature; and so consequently it cannot be the only matter of a sinners righteousness, as Mr. Norton doth all along make it to be.

8. I said also in pag. 103. That faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams heart, as the moral Law of nature was, and that Adam in his innocency did not know any thing of Christ, or of faith in Christ as his surety; and there∣fore that the ten Commandments were not written in his heart, in the same sence as they were given to fallen Adam at mount Sinai, after that Christ was published to be the seed of the woman, that should break the Devils head-plot for the redemption of believing sinners.

From these and the like considerations in my Dialogue I did conclude, that the tearm moral Law was no way fit to be given to the ten Commandments, ei∣ther in relation to the moral Law of Adams nature, or to the Covenant of na∣ture, because the tearm moral Law in neither of these two sences, doth express the true scope of the ten Commandments, as every general title ought to do, but they do rather pervert the true scope of the ten commandments to a wrong sence.

This is the true scope of my arguing in my Dialogue.

Mr. Norton doth thus answer, in p. 178.

If the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ, as well as mo∣ral duties, then the ten Commandments require moral duties, as well as faith in Christ: if so, then they may aptly in that respect be called the moral Law.

[Reply 1] Mr. Norton doth often leave out the tearm, Moral Law of nature, and instead thereof useth only the term, Moral Law, but I put in the word Nature; and in that respect I say they cannot be fitly called the moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created, because they were not given at mount Sinai in that abstracted sence from the Covenant of grace, as they were to Adam; for they

were given to him as the meer Law of his nature only, without any promise or threatning annexed to them: but at mount Sinai they were given to fallen A∣dam, not as a meer Law of perfect nature, but as a Covenant of grace and reconciliation to man that was now of a corrupted nature: and 2. They were given to man corrupted, with a promise of salvation in Heaven to all bel••evers, and with a threatning of damnation in Hell to all unbelievers, Exod. 20. 5, 6, 7.

And from thence it followes, that the ten commandments cannot fitly be called the moral Law (of nature) as it was given to Adam, which is the great point th••t Mr. Norton contends for, as the only matter of a sinners justifica∣tion.

3. Thence it doth also follow, that the ten Commandments were given to fallen Adam, for more excellent ends then they were given to Adam; namely, to shew sin, and to make sinners fly to God through Christ the only Mediator of their reconciliation, and to be as a teaching School-master unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith, Gal. 3. 24.

4. Hence it followes, that Mr. Norton is confounded in his right understand∣ing of the ten Commandments; for though he doth sometimes call faith in Christ a moral duty of the ten Commandments, in pag. 179. yet he cannot by the same re••son call it a moral duty of the moral Law of nature, though yet he doth endeavour to do it in the next place: For

Mr. Nor••on saith thus in pag, 179.

The Angells in their Creation received a principle, whereby they were able to believe ••n Christ their head and confirmer (being commanded so to do) without the inspiring of any new principle. Had Christ in like manner been propounded unto Adam in his innocency, to have been believed in as his head and confi••mer, which was no more repugnant unto that estate, then to the state of Angels, he had (through proportionable concourse of the first cause) been able to have yielded like obedience thereunto: why then (saith he) was not that principle in Adam able to have carried him out to believe in Christ as a head and Redeemer? could not that command have consisted with Adams estate in innocency?

[Reply 2] Instead of proving what he affirms, he comes off with an interrogation? why then (saith he) was not that principle in Adam able to have carried him out to have believed in Christ as a head and redeemer? could not that com∣mand have consisted with Adams state in innocency? these two interrogations are brought in for strong affirmations, to prove that Adam by vertue of his concreated mo••al principles of nature, was able to have believed in Christ; and therefore that the tearm Moral Law, as it related to the moral Law of na∣ture, is a sutable title for the Decalogue.

2. I w••ll by and by shew that it could not consist with Adams state in inno∣cency, * 1.3 to believe in Christ as a head and redeemer, because believing in Christ doth not appertain to the Covenant of nature, under which Adam lived during the time of his innocency.

3. Mr. Weames doth most truly affirm (in his Portraiture pag. 91. 145, 220.) That though Adam before his fall might believe in the Trinity; yet (saith he) he could not believe the incarnation of the second person: For then he should have understood of his own fall (and so he should have lived in the con∣tinual

fear of it.) But (saith he) the first Adam had not any natural fear, as the second Adam had, because there was no hurtful object before his eyes, as there was before the eyes of the second Adam; this speech of his I do but hint in this place, because I have noted it more at large elsewhere.

4. Mr. B••rges saith (in Vindiciae legis R. T. 129.) that Adam need∣ed no mediator nor comfort (in his innocency) because he could not be ter∣r••fied with any sin.

But saith Mr. Norton.

Had Christ been propounded unto Adam in his innocency he had been able to have believed in Christ as his head and confir∣mer.

5. In these words he seems to intend no other faith, which being called for doth reach no further then to believe in Christ as his head and confirmer; which kind of believing had it been in Adam, had fallen a great deal short of that kind of faith which is commanded in the Decalogue; therefore his answer is no better then a meer evasion; for in my Dialogue I argued against Mr. Nor∣tons pretended matter of justification by the moral Law of nature, which I there say is not contained in the ten Commandments, namely, not in that ab∣stracted sence from the Covenant of grace as it was given to Adam.

6. Mr. Norton doth limit Adams ability to believe, through proportionable concourse of the first cause; But I believe it may well puzzle his reader, (if not himself) to explain what he means by proportionable concourse of the first cause; whether he means that Adam had in himself a power already wrought by God in his creation as the first cause (as his words seem to carry it) or whether he should have been enabled to believe by fresh supplies, beyond that natural reach which he had in his creation? If Adam had already a principle to believe in Christ, then he needed not proportionable concourse of the first cause; on the other hand, if he must yet have proportionable concourse of the first cause to enable him to believe, by new influences of the spirit; then he had not already a principle to believe in Christ, nor could he have it as long as he lived under the Covenant of nature:

And from hence it follows that Mr. Norton had no just ground to infer from the Covenant of grace in the D••calogue, that Adam had a principle while he li∣ved under the Covenant of nature to believe in Christ.

2. From hence it doth also follow that though the ten Commandments do comprehend the moral Law of nature, yet they do not comprehend it in the same sense as it was given to Adam for a meer Law of nature, neither do they compre∣hend the Covenant of works that was given to Adam; but the Law of nature is now conjoyned to the Decalogue in the new form of a Covenant of grace; con∣junctim and not devisim.

7. As for that Instance which he brings of the Angels believing in Christ as their head and confirmer, it is but a doubtful instance at the best, and it is no sound way of arguing to bring in one doubtful assertion to confirm another, espe∣cially to bring in a meer phantacy to confirm a doubtful point: for I believe it no better then a meer phantacy to affirm that the elect Angels were confirmed by believing in Christ; seeing one part of them sell before Adam; and so con∣sequently when they fell, the rest that stood were confirmed before Christ was revealed to be a Mediator, Head, or Confirmer.

8. Mr. Burges in pag. 134, 135. doth fully confute the two reasons which * 1.4 Mr. Calvin gives in Col. 1. 20. for the affirmative; namely, that the Angels needed Christs mediation for their confirmation. Mr. Jeanes in the Fulness of Christ, p. 187. saith, Christ is the head of Angels, Col. 2. 10. 1. In regard of excellency or eminency; For all Angelical perfections fall short of the hyposta∣tical union vouchsafed to the humane nature of Christ, Ebr. 2. 16. Ebr. 1. 4. 2. In regard of authority over them, they are his servants made subject to him, 1 Pet. 3. 22. But 3. saith he, others go further, and affirm that he is a me∣diator of good Angels, though not of redemption, yet of confirmation; But against them, we may from the School-men take these two arguments. 1. Christ had not been a mediator, and had not been incarnated if Adam had not fallen, therefore to affirm that Christs mediation, was for the confirmation of Angels is without Scripture. 2. Christ merited for those onely for whom he was a media∣tor: but he did not merit any thing for Angels, therefore he was not a mediator for them: The minor is proved thus, Christ died for those for whom he merited any thing, and his merits had not their consummation but at his death, and 2. Mr. Shepherd doth affirm, that in case Adam had kept the first Covenant, yet he should not have been confirmed by Christ, but by his obedience to the positive co∣venant; and the like must be said of the elect Angels that kept the Covenant of nature that was made with them; but 3. See Mr. Shepheards words cited at large in Reply 3. N^o. 10.

9. I do the rather believe that the elect Angels were confirmed (not by be∣lieving in Christ, but that they were confirmed before Christ was declared to be a mediator to be believed in) by their obedience to Gods arbitrary and transient positive command, in their attending on such earthly creatures as Adam and Eve were, when they were brought into paradise, as I have declared it in Chap. 4. Sect. 2. and also in my book of the inst••tution of the Sabbath: for Eve knew that the Serpent was not able to speak with an intell••gible voice without the help of some good Angel, that did perswade her to eat of that tree for the bet∣tering of her knowledge; for as yet she did not know that any of the Angels were * 1.5 fallen. 2. The only reason why these heavenly angels did attend on such earthly creatures as Adam and Eve were, (was not from their own natural instinct, for there was no natural likeness between them in the condition of their nature to make them associate themselves with Adam and Eve; for they were of a quite differing nature; seeing they were Spirits of a heavenly nature and Adam and Eve were but flesh and blood, and of an earthly nature) was from Gods Arbitrary command, and from his positive Covenant, which had a promise of confirma∣tion, and a threatning of deprivation annexed to it, (according to the form of the Covenant of nature that was made with Adam,) namely, that in case they did attend upon such earthly creatures, as Adam and Eve were, then they should be confirmed in their concreated moral prefections after the Image of God; But in case they refused to do it, then in dying they should die, namely, a double spiritual death; 1. by being deprived of their concreated moral perfections; and 2. that in the want thereof they (being of an active nature) should rush into a violent course of sinning against every branch of the moral Law of their created nature, and especially in hating the good estate of man; and this new sinning quality of their nature, doth also occasion a new punish∣ment

to be inflicted on them at the end of the world, namely, an eternal dam∣nation in Hell.

This was the true ground (as I conceive) of the fall of the one part of the Angels (and of the confirmation of the other part) and not their believing in Christ as their head and confirmer; seeing Christ was not as yet declared as long as Adam and Angels did continue under the Covenant of meer na∣ture.

The internal cause of the confirmation of the one part of the Angels was Gods Election; But the external cause was, as I said before, their obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant in attending on earthly Adam: by the moral Law of their spiritual nature, they were exempted from so low a service as to attend on earthly creatures: but it was Gods positive Law that did bind them to that obedience, and that threatned them with a spiritual death in case they refused.

But Mr. Norton doth give a further Answer in pag. 181.

If (saith he) you intend no more then what you said before: (namely that the ten Commandments require faith in Christ) we do not onely acknowledge it, But thence infer what you deny; namely, that Adam was obliged to believe in Christ: in case God should call for it, because the Law, (now called the Decalogue) was given to Adam as a rule of universal and absolute obedience, he stood obliged thereby, not only unto what God did at present, but unto whatsoever God should after∣wards require.

[Reply 3] His inference, and the reason of it, hath many dangerous consequences at∣tending upon it; 1. because it implies that Adam in his innocency, whiles he lived under the moral Law of nature, and under the transient Covenant of nature, was able by his natural principles to believe in Christ, which is not a work of pure nature, but of supernatural grace onely.

2. Because it lays an imputation of preposterousness upon Gods govern∣ment, as if he might call for believing in Christ whiles Adam stood un∣der the Covenant of nature only, and before there was any necessary use of a Covenant of grace and reconciliation, as I observed it before from Master Burges.

3. The Covenant made with Adam, saith Mr. Burges; though it be truly called a Covenant, yet no ways a Testament; because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam; yea, Mr. Norton himself doth acknowledge in pag. 183. That the Covenant at mount Sinai was confirmed with the blood of Beasts, Erod. 24. 5, 8. compared with Ebr. 9. 19. And saith he, Paul calleth it a Testament; Aphrase proper to the Covenant of Grace, pre∣supposing the death of the Testat••r, and saith he, this term Testament, is never attributed to the Covenant of works, Ebr. 9. 18, 19, 20. Namely, it is never Attributed to the Covenant of nature made with Adam; but yet it is attributed •••• the Covenant of works that was made with the national Church of the Jews at mount Sinai; as I have shewed more at large else where.

4. Mr. Burges saith (in Vindiciae legis, pag. 1••8.) there was in Adam a faith of adherence, or of dependance on God in his promise and word; But this faith, saith he, did not imply any imperfection of the state of that subject, as sinful, as

justifying faith doth; th••s is a true position, and from thence it follows that justifying faith was inconsistent with Adams state, as long as he stood in his in∣nocency under the Covenant of nature, because it would have argued that he had then been in a sinful condition, and that he needed Gods reconciliation for his justification from sin.

5. Mr. Burges saith, in pag. 130. The second person, though not as incar∣nate, or to be incarnated, yet he with the Father did cause all righteousness in Adam; and the holy Ghost (sa••th he) was the worker of holiness in Adam, though not as the holy Spirit of Christ purchased by his death for his Church; he doth in these words distinguish aright between Adams created natural holi∣ness, and his supernatural holiness, which he had after his fall and conver∣sion, which we also have from the holy Spirit of Christ in the Covenant of grace onely; and this necessary distinction is observed also by Mr. Walker on Eph. 4. 24. which I have cited elsewhere.

6. Mr. Blake on the Covenant saith thus in p. 14. The first Covenant was immediate, no mediator intervening; All the blessings of the first Covenant (saith he) flowed from the Trinity, as the creation it self did, without re∣spect of Christ incarnate; there was no revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency.

7. Mr. Woodbridge denies that Adam in his innocency could have faith in * 1.6 a Mediator; for saith he, faith in a Mediator doth Essentially suppose imper∣fection; and saith he, faith in a Mediator is at an end, when we shall be per∣fected in glory. 1 Pet. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 7. This I believe is a sound truth, and therefore Irencus was in a great error in affirming that faith shall a∣bide in heaven, because there we shall more throughly pierce into Divine things then we can in this life; But how then doth Peter say, that faith hath an end here, 1 Pet. 1. 9. and so Dr. Alle in his Poor Mans library, part. 2. fol. 92. for the confutation of Ireneus.

8. Mr. Woodbridge saith, in pag. 132. that neither faith nor repentance were any part of that soul perfection in the which man at first was created; and therefore it is a great absurd••ty to affirm that God did principle Adam with any more in his innocency then he did require of him by the moral Law of his nature, and by the transient Law of the Covenant of nature; more then this had been needless and useless, and the most wise disposed of all things, would ordain nothing for Adam, that was needless and useless for his present condition; yea, Mr. Norton himself doth acknowledge in pag. 180. that faith in Christ was inconsistent with Adams state in innocency; he doth in these words in effect grant what the Dialogue hath asserted, to the confusion of his said inference, and from thence it follows that Adam in his innocency had no principle by the moral Law of nature to believe in Christ: But he addes in case God should call for it: But when is that? not as long as he lived under the moral Law of his nature, and under the transient Covenant of nature; for in case God should have called for it in that juncture of time, he should have governed things in a prepostrous manner, by calling for the exercise of the su∣pernatural grace of faith whiles Adam lived under the Covenant of nature; But t••s blasphemy to affirm that God did govern things so preposterously; and therefore it doth from thence follow; That Adam could not be obliged to

believe in Christ as his Head and Redeemer (which is an act of supernatural grace) as long as he lived under the Covenant of meer nature.

9. Mr. Walker on the Sabbath, pag. 58. saith, man in the state of innocency could not have any thoughts or meditations of glory in heaven, or any studies to fit and sanctifie himself for the fruition thereof until Christ the onely way to eternal Rest, and glory was promised; and see more of his speeches to this effect cited in Chap. 1. Sect. 4.

10. Mr. Shepherd saith in Thesis on the Sab. p. 133. The first Covenant cannot speak of Christ, of whom Adam stood in no need; no not so much as to confirm him in that estate; for (saith he) with leave I think, That look as Adam breaking the first Covenant by sin, is become immutable, evil, and miser∣able in himself, according to the rule of justice in that Covenant: so suppose him to have kept that Covenant, then in like sort all his posterlty had been im∣mutably happy and holy, (not meerly of grace, but) by the equity and ju∣stice of the said first Covenant; and from hence, saith he, it follows that he stood in no need of Christ, or of any revelation of him, no not to confirm him in that Covenant; and, saith he, a few lines before, Christ is revealed onely in the Covenant of grace; and therefore could not be so revealed in the Co∣venant of works, which is directly contrary thereunto; Adam (saith he) was not capable of any type then, to reveal Christ unto him, and so consequently he denieth the tree of life to be any type of Christ.

11. Benjamin Needler in his Expository notes on Genesis saith, in p. 36. The tree of life was a similitude, to the which the holy Ghost doth allude in making mention of Christ: But it was no type of Christ, and the reason is, because the Covenant of works by which Adam was to live is directly contrary to the Co∣venant of grace by saith in Christ; Adam therefore was not capable of any types then, to reveal Christ to him; of whom the first Covenant cannot speak, and of whom Adam stood in no need; But (saith he) it is objected that though Adam stood in no need of Christ as a redeemer, yet he stood in need of Christ as a confirmer; he answers by denying it just as Mr. Shepherd doth above.

12. Mr. Burges saith, in pag. 136. The tree of life was not a Sacrament of Christ to Adam, I deny it, saith he, upon the former grounds.

But Mr. Nortons last unsound assertion is this,

[Reply 3] Because the Law now called the Decalogue was given to Adam as a rule of universal, and absolute obedience; he stood obliged thereby (saith he) not only unto what God did at present, but unto whatsoever God should afterward require.

The very foundation of most of Mr. Nortons errors lies in this unsound asser∣tion: * 1.7 for,

1. By this assertion he doth confound the transient and arbitrary Covenant of nature; (and sundry other arbitrary and transient Covenants) with the concreated moral Law of Adams nature; whereas these two sorts of Laws ought carefully to be distinguished and not confounded.

2. From this unsound assertion he infers that the moral Law of nature did ob∣lige Adam to yield obedience to the transient Law of the arbitrary Covenant of nature (namely to eat of the tree of life in the first place; and 2. That it did oblige him not to eat of the forbidden fruit) and by this means he doth confound Gods secret will (which he hath reserved to himself in the ordering of his transient positive Laws) to depend upon his revealed will in the moral Law of nature: But I think I have sufficiently shewed, that the moral Law of Adams nature did not prohibit him to eat of the forb••dden fruit, seeing it was good meat by creation, and therefore that p••ohibition was not dictated to him from the revealed will of God in the moral Law of nature, but from Gods arb∣trary and secret will.

2. By his said assertion he doth conclude, that all and every one of Gods transient positive Laws aswell after as before the fall are grounded in, and de∣rived from the moral Law of Adams nature, or from the moral Law of the ten Commandments, as it is the second edition of the moral Law of nature: But this is a most palpable untruth, because it deprives God of his arbitrary power to make any transient positive Laws from the good pleasure of his secret will, un∣less they be grounded in, and derived from his revealed moral Law of nature: But I think I have sufficiently shewed in Chap. 1. and in Sect. 1. and in Chap. 4. at Reply 1. and in this Chapter, at Reply 8. that both Scripture and reason do teach us, sometimes to restrain universal words (as the word Law is) to the present matter in hand; and according to this rule 1. The moral Law of nature, and 2. The transient Law of the Covenant of nature, and 3. the Law of the Co∣venant of grace in the Decalogue, must carefully be distinguished from each other, and not confounded under the same word Law, at mount Sinai: or else abundance of errors and heresies will be hatched at one time or other: the Apostle saith, even in things without life giving a sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds or tunes, how shall it be known what is piped or harped, 1 Cor. 14. 7.

Conclusion

From the premises it follows, That as long as Adam lived under the obedi∣ence of the moral Law of his concreated nature, and as long, as he l••ved under the translent Law of the Covenant of nature, he was not obl••ged to be∣lieve in Christ; neither could it stand with the order of Gods government in that juncture of time, to call for believing in Christ, as his head and Re∣deemer, because of the inconsistency, and incompatibleness of justifying faith with the state of pure nature: and 2. from thence it doth also follow, that Mr. Nortons said inference is of dangerous consequence to the utter confound∣ing of Gods distinct order of government, under the two said distinct Cove∣nants; and to the introducing of many heterodox tenents into the Body of Divinity.

SECT. II.

Mr. Norton doth object further, in pag. 180.

YOur argument taken from the engraving of faith in Adams heart; to prove, that the tearm moral Law (of nature) is unfitly applyed to the

ten commandments, is of no force, the Law of works (saith he) was the same to Adam, before and after the fall; Because the Covenant of works is always the same; the Law being the same, the obligation is the same.

[Reply 4] This assertion hath many notable errors i•• it.

1. Take notice that my argument taken from the ten Commandments, which require faith in Christ cannot be applied to Adam, because faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams heart in the time of his innocency; doth prove that faith in Christ is no part of that moral obedience, that was engra∣ven in his heart, in the time of his creation, but yet it is the principal thing that is commanded in the Law of the Decalogue, for without faith in Christ▪ there is no obedience to that Law that will be accepted of God; and from thence I did infer in my Dialogue, that it is no fit title to call the ten Com∣mandments the moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created; but in relation onely to the perpetual Covenant of grace; and so consequently it is no small error to call obedience to the moral Law of nature, the matter of a sin∣ners justification, as Mr. Norton doth all along, as the chief mark of the ten com∣mandments; though it is indeed the chief mark of his erroneous judge∣ment.

2. It is another great error to make the transient Law of nature to be still in force in the Decalogu••, as the onely matter of a sinners justification, seeing that covenant was made utterly void and null, as soon as Adam had but tasted the forbidden fruit▪ and nothing of it doth now remain, but the execution of the threatned punishment of a double spiritual death to all Adams natural posterity successively.

3. It is another grand error to make the Covenant of works, both before and after the fall to be the same; But I think I have sufficiently shewed that the Covenant made with Adam, is no where called a Covenant of works in all the Bible; and it cannot be called a Covenant of works, in the plural, be∣cause it required but one work, or act of eating. 2. I have also shewed that the Covenant of works after the fall, was ordained for no other end or use, but to be as a Schoolmaster unto Christ, and thence it follows that the Law of works both before and after the fall is not the same; and of this, see more in Sect. 5.

4. It is another grand error, to make the obligation of the Covenant of nature, the same with the obligation of the ten Commandments, But I think I have sufficiently shewed in Chap. 1. and in Chap. 4. and elsewhere, that the obligation of the Covenant of nature, in case Adam had but first eaten of the tree of life, was no other, but the confirmation of his concreated life after Gods Image in moral perfections, and 2. That the obligation of that Covenant in case of his disobedience in eating first of the forbidden fruit, was no other death, but a double Spiritual death in this wo••ld onely: But on the contrary the obligation of the Law of grace in the Decalogue, in case of faith in Christ, was an eternal life in heaven, and in case of final unbelief eternal death in hell; and thence it follows, that the obligation of these two Covenants is not the same. Mr. Wotton saith, in the beginning of Chap. 4. I deny the assumption, God did not give the Law of the Decalogue, to be the onely and perpetual rule of that justice which is the way whereby de facto he brings to eternal life, all that shall be saved.

[Reply 5] For the better light to the reader, to make a right distinction between the moral Law of nature in the which Adam was created, and the transient Cove∣nant * 1.8 of nature. I will now produce sundry sorts of Gods transient positive Laws and Covenants, which he was pleased to make with sundry persons at se∣veral times and after sundry means, for the tryal of obedience, by some one outward work or transient bodily act onely; and 2. That as soon as the sa••d tryal was made, those transient Laws and Covenants became utterly void and null for ever after, and therefore they were never after called the Law or Co∣venant of works; and 3. That the most of those transient Laws and positive Covenants that I will now cite, are no way reducible, either to the moral Law of nature, or to the Covenant of nature, and 4. That many of these Positives are such as Command things not onely contrary to natural reason, but also con∣trary to the literal sense of Gods moral Laws.

These following instances, or at the least some of them, will evidence the truth of my said assertions.

1. God propounded this positive Law and Covenant to Gid••on: That he would imploy him to be his instrument, for the delivering of his people Israel, from under the bondage of the Midianites; upon this condition, that he should not take unto him any other Souldiers to effect it then he should appoint, Jud. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. and for his most sure knowledge of those particu∣lar Souldiers, God appointed Gideon to bring his whole Army down to the water, that so he might try them, by lapping water, which of them should be the par∣ticular persons, that he should take unto him, for the effecting of the said deli∣verance.

And therefore, in the second place, because Gideon was careful to observe the said condition on his part, God was as careful also to perform the promised deliverance on his part, Judg. 7. 6, 7.

3. It is worth the marking, that this Law and Covenant, was made onely with Gideons person, but yet it was for the bodily deliverance of all Israel.

4. Observe also that this transient positive Law and Covenant is no way reducible to the moral Law of nature, but it is rather contrary to the wisdom of it, for the moral Law of nature would rather have directed him to meet his numberless enemies with an equal force; which is according to our Saviours advice, in ••uke 14. 31. and accordingly Gideon did at the first labor to fur∣nish himself with a numerous company of Souldiers; until it pleased God to direct him otherwise, and to promise him the victory, in case he took no more but the said 300 Souldiers that lapped water; And that promise implyed a threatning also of some evil that should befal him, in case he did not observe those d••rections.

2. The Lord made another positive Law and Covenant, with a young Prophet, that he▪ should go to Jeroboam the King of Is••ael, and denounce a dreadful threatning against him for his idolatry; and for his better incou∣ragement, the Lord was pleased to enter into a transient positive Covenant with him, to protect him from the fury of Jeroboam, and from any other evil, upon this condition, that he should neither eat bread, nor drink water in that place, nor turn back again, by the same way that he came; but on the contrary

this promise implyed a threatning, that in case this young Prophet did trans∣gress these prohibitions on his part, then God would also be at liberty from this Covenant of protection: and 2. The said prohibition did also imply a threat∣ning, that some evil should befall him, in case he did transgress the said con∣ditions on his part: and so it fell out; for he was killed by a Lion, as it is re∣corded in 1 Kings 13. 9.

This positive Law and Covenant is as I conceive no way reducible, neither to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of grace, because neither of these three sorts of Laws did forbid him to eat and drink in that place, (in case his hunger did invite him) nor yet to return by the same way that he came: but these things became unlawful unto his particular person by Gods arbitrary Law and Covenant only; and such a kind of arbitrary Law was the Law of the Covenant of nature.

3. The Lord commanded another young Prophet to go unto Ahab king of Israel, to tell him that he would deliver Benhadad into his hands, 1 King. 20. 28. implying thereby, that it was his positive will and command, that he should put Benhadad (his mortal enemy) to death, which was but good justice in Sauls apprehensions, 1 Sam. 24. 18, 19. And the word, I will deliver him into thy hands, doth imply as much, as it appears by the same phrase Deliver, in Deut. 7. 23. But because Ahab did not observe this positive Law and command, but did disobey it by sparing Benhadads life, therefore the Prophet told him that he should lose his own life for it: and 2. Our larger Anno••. on 1 Kings 20. 42. doth parallell Sauls disobedience to Gods positive Law in sparing Agag, to this disobedience of Ahab in sparing Benhadad.

4. It was Gods positive command to Elijah to go to Zarephath, and then it was his positive Covenant, that he would provide a widow there that should sustain him during the time of the famine, 1 Kings 17. 9. and because Elijah obeyed this positive command, God was tyed by his positive Covenant to pro∣vide that Widow with sufficient food to make good his promise to Elijah: and tis observable, that this positive command and Covenant was no way re∣ducible, neither to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Law of the Covenant of grace; but it was a particular arbitrary Law and Covenant, made only for the comfortable sustaining of Elijah's life during the time of that famine.

5. It was Gods positive command to Elijah at another time, to eat of the cake that he had provided for him, and then it was his positive Covenant that he should walk in the strength of that meat for the space of forty days and forty nights together, 1 Kings 9. 8. This transient arbitrary Law and Covenant was made only for his bodily preservation, during the time of that persecution: and it is also observable, that this positive Law and Covenant is no way redu∣cible to the moral Law of nature made with Adam, neither is it reducible to the arbitrary Law and Covenant of nature, no otherw••se, but as it doth exem∣plifie that God used the like arbitrary power in both those positive Laws and Covenants.

6. It was Gods positive command unto the two Kings of Judah and Israel, that they should make Ditches in the Valley; and then it was his positive cove∣nant to fill those Ditches with water, for the comfortable relief of their whole

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

host, both man and beast, which were now ready to perish for the want of wa∣ter, 2 Kings 3. 16. This positive command and Covenant is no way reducible to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of nature, except to ex∣emplifie: that both these Laws and Covenants are from the meer arbitrary will of God alike: and thence also it follo••es▪ that neither the moral Law of na∣ture, nor yet the Covenant of nature were given to Adam as a rule of univer∣sal and absolute obedience, whereby he stood obliged, not only unto what God d••d at present, but also unto whatsoever God should afterwards require, as Mr. Norton doth hold in Reply 3. before.

7. It was Gods positive command unto the Prophets Widow, that she should borrow Vessels of her neighbors, as many as she could get; and then it was his positive command to fill those Vessels with oyl, that so the might thereby be en∣abled to pay her debts, and might live of the rest, 2 Kings 4. 3.

8. It was Gods positive command to Naaman to wash his body seven times in Jordan, and then it was his positive Covenant that he should be cured of his leprosie, 2 Kings 5. 10. This positive command and Covenant, and the former at N^o 7. are no way reducible to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Co∣venant of nature, (seeing that Covenant is now utterly null) except it be to exemplifie that Gods arbitrary will was the only ground of them both: and we see that Naaman by the light of his natural reason thought it to be so pub∣lickly a means of his cure, that he thought to have disobeyed this positive com∣mand, because he thought that the Rivers of his own Countrey were better water then the water of Jordan. But his Servant perswaded him to follow the Prophets direction, and so he did, and then he was cured. But in case he had disobeyed. then this positive promise did imply a threatning of some evil that should have befallen him for his disobedience, as was instanced before in the case of the young Prophet at N^o 2. Yea, in case he had washed his body not on∣ly seven times, but seventy times seven in a better River then Jo••da••, he should not have been cleansed; and in case he had washed himself no more but six times in Jordan, he should not have been cleansed neither, but some worser evil should have befallen him then his leprosie for his disobedience.

The healing vertue therefore did not lie neither in the quality, nor yet in the quantity of that water; but in case of his obedience it lay in Gods posi∣tive Law and Covenant: and so in like sort it was from the vertue of Gods po∣sitive Law and Covenant, that the Tree of the twofold life should have confirmed Adam in his concreated perfections, ••f he had obeyed Gods will by his act of eating it, as it was of death to him for his disobedience in eating first of the forbidden fruit.

9. * 1.9 It is also observable, that some of Gods positive Laws and Covenants were made only to the obedient bodily act of seeing, hearing, eating, drinking, washing, touching, &c.

As for example, The Lord by his Propher Elijah did make a positive Cove∣nant with El••sha, that in case he could but see Elijah with his bodily eye when he was taken from him, he should have a double portion of the Spirit that was upon Elijah; but in case he did not see him, then it should not be so: but be∣cause El••sha did see Elijah with his bodily eye when he was taken from him, therefore the Lord was tyed by his said positive Covenant to bestow upon him

the double portion of the Spirit that was upon Elijah, 2 Kings 2. 10, 12.

10. God made a positive Covenant with David, that he would deliver the Army of the Phil••stines into his hand, in case he did but hear a noise of going in tops of the Mulbury trees, (with his bodily ears) and did but then bestir himself, because then the Lord would according to his Covenant go before him to smite the host of the Philistines: and because David was careful to ob∣serve the said conditions on his part, the Lord was tyed by the free promise of his positive Covenant to perform the condition on his part; and accordingly he went before David, and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazar, 2 Sam. 5. 24, 25.

11. God made a positive Covenant with Elijah, that in case he did but eat of the cake that he had provided for him, he should walk in the strength of that meat for forty days and forty nights together; of which I have spoken be∣fore at N^o 5. and so in like sort, in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of the twofold life, he should by the vertue of Gods free Covenant have been confirmed in his concreated life of moral perfections, and all his posterity for ever, in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise.

12. It was Gods positive prohibition to the young Prophet, as I noted it before at N^o 2. neither to eat nor drink in that place (in Bethel) implying thereby that some evil should befal him, in case he did, and so it fell out, though he did it not wilfully, but through the deceitful perswasion of the old Prophet: and so it fell out with Adam and Eve, she did not sin wilfully, but through the spe∣cious perswasion of the good Angel, as she thought it was: and so Adams sin was not a wilful sin, but he sinned through the perswasion of his beloved Wife; and yet they were both alike punished with a twofold Spiritual death, because they transgres••ed the condition of that Covenant.

13. It was the good pleasure of Christ Jesus to command the man that was born blind to wash his eyes in the Pool Syloam, and then it was his positive Co∣venant that he should receive his sight: and because he did obey this positive command, by performing the condition on his part, by washing his eyes in the said Pool, therefore Christ Jesus was tyed by his positive Covenant to give him his sight, and accordingly he received his sight, John 9. 7.

14. The Lord made a positive Covenant with all Israel, that they should pass s••fely through the overflowing River of Jordan, as soon as ever the soles of the feet of them that bare the Ark of the Lord did but touch the waters: and be∣cause those that bare the Ark of the Lord did perform the condition on their part, the Lord was tyed to perform the condition on his part: and thereupon he caused the waters above to stand on a heap, until they were all passed over in safety, Josh. 2. 13.

15. It was Gods positive Covenant with Lot, (including therein hi•• Wife and children) that they should be preserved in safety, in case they did fly out of Sodom to the Mountain, adding thereto this condition, that they should not look behind them, Gen. 19. 17. but because Lot's Wife did not observe this condition, but did turn back her head to look behind her, therefore the said promise implyed a threatning of some evil so: her disobedience, and so in v. 26. she became a pillar of Salt: yet I question not but that Lot might and did look back in the sorrow of his mind for the loss of his Sons in law, without any

breach of the said condition, because it was but a transient condition to be ob∣served only in their way to Zoar.

These positive Laws and Covenants are no way reducible neither to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of nature; and therefore these two sorts of Laws were not given to Adam and his poste∣rity as a rule of universal and absolute obedience to whatsoever God should afterwards require.

But yet there are other positive Laws and Covenants which do belong to the Decalogue in a typical relation to the Covenant of grace; and yet they have no relation at all neither to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of nature.

15. It was Gods positive command and Covenant with his national Church in the Wilderness, that in case any of them were bitten with fiery Serpents, they should make a brazen Serpent, and set it aloft upon a Pole, that whosoever did but look upon it with their bodily eye, they should instantly be healed. But this healing vertue came not from any natural vertue that was in that brazen Ser∣pent, nor yet from the natural vertue of the eye-sight, but it came from the supream power of Gods positive Covenant, during the time of their travels in the Wilderness, and no longer; and therefore Hezekiah did afterwards break it in pieces as useless for the former purpose: and so in like sort the twofold Spi∣ritual death in Gen. 2. 17. came not from the natural operation of the apple, but from the supreme power of Gods relative justice in that Covenant for Adams disobedience.

This positive Covenant was ordained to be for a typical representation of Gods Covenant of grace and reconciliation by the death of Christ, as our Sa∣viour doth expound it in John 3. 14, 15. and therefore it doth belong to the Decalogue, but not to the moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created.

16. It was the good pleasure of Gods supream will to make a positive Cove∣nant with Samson, (as it was declared to his parents before he was born) that he should deliver Israel from under the dominion of the Philistines upon this condition, that he should observe the Law of the Nazarites from his birth, by letting his hair grow, &c. Numb. 6. compared with Judges 13.) but when he suffered Dalilah to cut off his Nazari••es hair, he brake the condition of that positive Covenant on his part, and then God was disobliged from performing the condition of the Covenant on his part, and therefore he deprived Samsoa of his victorious Spirit, and of his protection also; and then the Philistines got the mastery over him, and used him with all reproach and shame as their capi∣tal enemy: but as soon as Samson by his repentance and faith in Christ, had ob∣tained Gods reconciliation, and that his hair was grown again, it pleased the Lord to repent him of the evil that he had done unto Samson, and to renew his Covenant with him, and then he did restore unto him his former victori∣ous Spirit, and then he conquered the Philistines at his death, more then in time of his life: but this new power and strength came not from the natural vertue of his long hair, but from the operation of Gods positive Covenant, who sanctifieth outward types at his pleasure, as he did the act of washing in the River Jordan to Naaman, for the cleansing of his leprosie: and as he would

have done the Tree of the twofold life to Adam, in case he had but observed the conditions of the Covenant of nature on his part, by eating first of the said Tree.

17. God did by his positive Law prohibit his national Church to sowe their fields with divers kind of grains mixed together, Lev. 19. 19. Deu. 22. 9. and from thence it did follow, that in case they did so do, then they should lose all their crop; for all those sorts of grain were made thereby utterly unlawful to be eat∣en, though otherwise they were good food by creation: and so in like sort was the prohibited fruit, but yet it became unlawful to be eaten in the first place, under the penalty of a double Spiritual death, by vertue of Gods positive pro∣hibition.

Conclusion.

From the premises it followes, that neither the Law of nature, nor yet the Covenant of nature were given to Adam as a rule of universal and absolute obedience unto whatsoever God should afterwards require, as Mr. Norton holds.

But saith Mr. Norton, in pag. 180.

The Law of God, (saith Z••nchy) speaking of the Law of Moses given in the interim, between the promise of redemption made first to Adam, and after∣wards to Abraham, and the fulfilling thereof, is nothing else but a true and lively expressed Picture of the image of God, according to which man was made.

[Reply 6] Zanchy's words are very general, touching the Law of God, as it was given by Moses: for he doth presently adde these words to the former, whereby we are instructed what we were, and what we are, and what we ought to be; and indeed (saith he) what we shall be, if we trust in Christ.

In this close of his words he doth plainly make the Law at mount Sinai to be a Covenant of grace and reconciliation, by the which the fallen sons of Adam are created anew after the image of God in righteousness and true holi∣ness, Ephes. 4. 24. But unto this image of God Adam was not created, he was created only in natural holiness and righteousness, and not in supernatural ho∣liness, until he was converted or re-created after his fall.

2. What though Zanchy doth confound the Law of nature with the Law of grace, and the Covenant of nature with the Covenant of grace in the Deca∣logue, yet that is no sufficient plea to justifie Mr. Nortons erroneous assertions against the truth held forth in my Dialogue, seeing his answers are intended for more then an ordinary confutation, because they are intended to justifie the general Courts ••ensure of it as heresie, and therefore they ought to have been tryed like gold.

3. Zanchy doth not clearly concur with Mr. Nortons sence, because he hath in several particulars made a wide difference between the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue, especially in the fourth Commandment, as I perceive by Mr. Walkers testimony; for, saith he, when learned men do call the Sabbath, and the Law of it natural, we are not to conceive, that by natural they mean a thing written in mans heart in the creation, which man was made to obey and perform simply as a reasonable creature and natural man; for the Sabbath was made for man (fallen) Mark 2. 27. But by natural they understand that, which

the very light of natural reason shews to be most convenient and necessary, for men that are now corrupt, and which so soon as is commanded and revealed by Gods word, appears to be so necessary in the very nature of it, both for mens souls and bodies, that without it they cannot ordinarily have any well being on Earth, and escape Hell, and come to Heaven after death. This exposition (saith Mr. Walker) learned. Zanchy gives of his own and other mens speeches, when they call the Law of the Sabbath natural: and (saith he) if it were so natu∣ral, as things written in mans heart in the creation, then the Heathen Gen∣tiles would have felt themselves bound by it, and would have shewed it in their practice in some measure more or less.

4. Therefore Zanchy's words must not be understood in that strict sence that Mr. Norton doth cite them for.

5. It is the less wonder that Zanchy doth make the Decalogue to be an express Picture of the image of God, according to which man was created, seeing he held that Adam was created in that true holiness which Paul speaks of in Ephes. 4. 24. which is only supernatural holiness, merited for the elect by the redem∣ption of Christ; whereas the holiness wherein Adam was created, was but natu∣ral holiness, or a sinless innocency, as I have formerly expounded it.

6. Mr. Walker doth often declare, that the Law that commands us to keep holy the Sabbath, or seventh day, was not written in mans heart in the creation; of which see him on the Sabbath, in pag. 9, 10, 58, 59, 66, 80, 91, 133. and on the contrary he affirmeth, that the Sabbath was only positively moral by Gods institution after Adams fall, in pag. 17▪ 34, &c. And in my Book of the Institu∣tion of the Sabbath I have affirmed the same truth; yea, Mr. Norton himself doth in some sort grant in pag. 178. that every one of the ten Commandments were not engraven in Adams heart in the time of his creation, and therefore he was not well advised to say as he doth, that the Law at mount Sinai is no∣thing else but a true and lively expressed Picture of the image of God, accord∣ing unto the which man was created.

SECT. III.

BUt saith Mr. Norton in pag. 181.

Our Quere is not whether the ten Commandments, in the full latitude of them, were given to Adam in innocency, but whether the obedience of Christ to the Law (that is, as it was given to Adam in innocency) were for our justifi∣cation? whose affirmative, by the way, appeareth thus,

That obedience unto the Law, whereby Adam, in case of his personal performance thereof, had been justified legally, is that by Christs per∣formance whereof received by faith, we are justified evangelically.

But the performance of obedience unto the Law, as given to Adam in inno∣cency, is that performance of obedience unto the Law, by which Adam, in case of performance personally, had been justified legally.

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 * 1.10; 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.

This necessary rule of a right exposition doth sufficiently confute Mr. Nortons threefold consideration of the word Law at mount Sinai.

But yet for the fuller satisfaction of the reader; I will examine his threefold consideration more particularly.

1. Saith he, It must be considered as a Law of works, obliging man un∣to a pure legal obedience, and accordingly to expect life or death.

I Reply, That the Law at mount Sinai, as it comprehends the ceremonial Law, is called the Law of works, in a typical relation to the covenant of grace, but not in any relation at all to the first transient Law of the Covenant of na∣ture that was made with Adam in his innocency; for I have before shewed, in Sect. 2. that the Law of the Covenant of nature, did not require works in the plural; it required no more, but one transient act, or work of once eating of the tree of life for the fulfilling of that Covenant.

2. I have also shewed with the concurrence of good authors, in Chap. 1. Sect. 4. That the promise of life in the said Covenant of nature, was not made to Adam, for any other life, but for the confirmation of his concreated natural life onely, in the sweet contents of an earthly paradise, and on the contrary that the kind of death that was threatned for his disobedience, in eating but once of the forbidden tree, was no other death but a double Spiritual death in this world onely. 1. By deprivation, and 2. By corruption of his nature, until it pleased God to make an alteration, by his declaration of the New Co∣venant of grace in Gen. 3. 15. then and not till then, he did first threaten a bodily death, in vers. 19. and then also he did appoint a particular judge∣ment to follow to each departed soul; as the Apostle doth tell us, in Ebr. 9. 27. and then and not till then, he did first promise an eternal life in heaven, to all such as died in the faith of their Redemption, by the promised seed of the woman; and 2. then and not till then, he did first threaten an eternal death in hell to all such as died in the unbelief of their Redemption, by the said pro∣mised seed of the woman.

This promise and threatning was made onely in the new Covenant of grace, and not in the first Covenant of nature, as Mr. Norton doth most inconsiderate∣ly make it to be.

3. I have also shewed that the first Covenant of nature that was made with Adam, in his innocency was utterly extinguished, as soon as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit; and that nothing of it doth now remain; but the execution of the said twofold Spiritual death, to all Adams natural po∣sterity.

4. Therefore the Decalogue at mount Sinai, doth not comprehend the first Law of the Covenant of nature, that was made with Adam in his inno∣cency.

5. Though Mr. Rutherford doth hold as Mr. Norton doth, that the Cove∣venant made with Adam, was made with him in relation to his perfect moral obedience, yet he doth differ from Mr. Norton in two main points in that Co∣venant.

1. He differs from him in the kind of life that was promised; he saith * 1.11 plainly, that it was not a life in Christ, nor the fruit of the merit of blood as our life is in the new Covenant, Joh. 3. 16. But saith he, it was a Law life, happily a life in glory; But yet (saith he) the life he lived, and the creatures for his service seem not to belong to the life (of glory) I have cited his sense more at large, in Chap. 1. Sect. 4.

2. Mr. Rutherford doth peremptorily deny the Law of works made with A∣dam, to be comprehended in the Law at mount Sinai; mark his title to Chap. 11. in pag. 57. and in pag. 60. he saith, 1. The Law pressed upon Israel, was not a Covenant of works (made with Adam) but a darker dispensation of grace; and 2. saith he, in pag. 60. The Law as pressed upon Israel, was not a Covenant of works (made with Adam) because it was given to Israel as a Cove∣nant of grace only; for,

1. Saith he, The Law, as the Law, or Covenant of works, was made only with perfect men, who need no mercy: But this Covenant (at mount Sinai) is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy; I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, E••od. 20. 2. It is made with st••ff-necked Israel, Deut. 29. Deut. 30. Deut 31. Deut. 32. And it is called a Covenant from the end, and the Object, as motions are denominated from their end; For the end of the Lords pressing the Law upon them, was to bring them un∣der a blessed necessity, to seek for salvation in their true City of Refuge Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of the spiritual bondage of sin.

2. Saith he, It was the Covenant made with Abraham, which was a Cove∣nant of grace; And though (saith he) it be called a Covenant besides that made at H••reb, Deut. 29. 1. (yet that is to be understood) first, because it * 1.12 was renewed again, after their breach. ••. Because ••t was repeated again a lit∣tle before the death of Moses, Deut. 31. 28, 29, 30. 3. Because there were some additions of special blessings, cursings, and ceremonial commands, that were not in the fo••mer proposed Covenant, in Exod. 20. yet the same it was In Substance▪ To love the Lord with all the heart, Deut. ••. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The fame with that of Abraham, Deut. 8. 18. That he may establish his Covenant * 1.13 which he sware unto thy Fathers, As it is this day; And when God delivered them out of Egypt, it is said, in Exod. 2. 24. That God heard their groaning and re∣membred his Cov••nant with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and so the Lord did expound it in his appearing unto Moses, in Exod. 3. 6. and in Jer. 31. 32. ••ot according to the Covenant which I made with their ••a hers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Now that was the Covenant which God made with Abraham, of the which circumclsion was a seal, Gen. 17. not of a temporary Canaan only, but also of heart circumcision; for the Lord expresly tells them when he took them by the hand (as his married wife) to bring them out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. That he meant no other Covenant then he made with Abraham of believing, Gen. 15. 6. and of walking before him, and being perfect, Gen. 17. 1, 2. which is somewhat more legal, as Moses and the Lord himself expounds it, Exod. 2. 24. Exod. 3. 6. Exod. 20. 1, 2. and he tells them in Lev. 26. That if in their enemies ha••d they repent, and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised hearts shall willingly accept the punishment of their iniquity, then saith the Lord, in vers. 24. I will remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my Covenant with Abra∣ham will I remember.

Besides (saith he) There are not here (in the Decalogue) three Co∣venants; [But One.]

And (saith he) there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai, Except, that when he mentions the one, he excludes not the other.

For to walk before the Lord, required in Abraham, Covenant, Gen. 17. 1. Is to walk in all the ways of the Lord, to fear him and to love him, Deut. 10. 12, 13. 1 Sam. 12. 22. Jos. 24. 22, 23, 24, 25. Luk. 1. 55, 70, 72, 73. All these places refer to the Covenant made with Abraham; And the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham, to give Canaan to his seed, Deut. 6. 10. Deut. 7. 12.

If thou hearken to these judgements to do them, it shall come to pass that the Lord thy God will keep unto the•• the Covenant of mercy, that he sware unto thy Fa∣thers, &c.

3. Saith he, this Covenant hath the promise of a circumcised heart, Deut. 30. 6. and of the word of faith, that is neer in the mouth, and of the righteous∣ness of Faith; clearly differenced from the righteousness of the Law by do∣ing, and so Paul expounds Moses, in Rom. 10. 5, 6, 7. with Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14.

4. Saith he, the Covenant of works (made with Adam) taught nothing of the way of the Expiation of sin by blood (typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins) as this Covenant doth, which all along had sa∣crifices, and blood to confirm it, Exod. 24. 8. Moses took the blood and sprinkled it o•• the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words; now the words were the * 1.14 ten Commandments. See Ebr. 9. 18, 19, to 25.

5. Saith he, this Covenant is made with Israel onely, Exod. 20. Deut. 5. Deut. 6. 5, 6, 7, 12. But saith he, the Covenant of works is made with all mankind.

6. Saith he, no people under the Law can be justified and saved thereby (namely, not by the Law of the Covenant of nature made with Adam) nor have their sins pardoned, Rom. 3. 9, 10, 11, 19, 20. Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. Rom. 9. Rom. 10. Psal. 130. 3. Psal. 143. 2. Gal. 3. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13. But in this Covenant, Abraham, Gen. 15. Psal. 32. Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and the Jews by faith have remission of sins and salvation as also the Gentiles have, Act. 10. 43. Act. 15. 11.

7. Saith he, The Lord mindes to lay aside the Law (of works made with A∣dam) as inconsistent with the Covenant of grace, Gal. 3. 18. If the inheritance be by the Law, then it is not by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by pro∣mise; for to live by this Covenant is a life of promises; all being here promised; both faith, the condition, and perseverance therein, and a new heart, pardon, righteousness, and life, &c.

8. Saith he, the passover and circumcision, Gen. 17. 7. all along were seals of the Covenant, as baptism (being one with circumcision in substance, Col. 2. 11.) is the seal of the same Covenant, Act. 2. 29, 40, 41, &c. circumci∣sion did bind Abraham to keep the Law, as a ceremony and seal of the Cove∣nant of grace commanded by God: But the Law as a Covenant of works (made with Adam) doth command no ceremony, no sacrifice, no type of Christ Mediator at all.

From this last clause, no type of Christ, It follows that Mr. Ruther∣ford could not hold the tree of life to be a type of Christ (as Master Norton doth) and therein he doth agree with Mr. Shephard and others before cited.

Having now briefly recited Mr. Rutherfords 8. Reasons, why the Law at ••ount Sinai cannot be taken in Mr. Nortons first consideration; namely, not for the Law of the Covenant of works, which he doth also call the Covenant of nature ma••e with Adam; I will adde that special caution, which Austin gives, namely, that Moses Law must be spiritually understood for fear of dangerous errors▪ in City of God, lib. 20. cap. 28.

9. All the promises and all the threatnings also, from Gen. 3. 15. to the end of the Revelation are made onely from the said Covenant of grace, * 1.15 and not from the Covenant of nature made with Adam; as I have formerly shewed in my exposition of the three general punishments, in Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.

10. Mr. Lawson saith in his body of Divinity, p. 279. All the penalties on Cain, the old world, the builders of Babel, and the rest, were penalties as threatned by, so inflicted for sin against God Redeemer; and all this (saith he) is evident from the books of Moses and the Prophets, which speaks to men as sinful, promise Christ, forbid impenitency, preach and urge repentance, and make all penalties removeable upon that Condition, which (saith he) could not have been done, if sin and penalties had been looked upon according to the Law of works (made with Adam.)

It is in vain therefore (saith he) to Argue, that because as the Law of works commands love to God, love to neighbor, did forbid idolatry, perjury, mur∣ther theft, &c. Did threaten death and punishment for these sins, so the Gospel commands, the same duties forbids the very same sins, threatneth the very same penalties, and promiseth life; Therefore the Law of works continueth, especi∣ally the moral Law; For the precepts, prohibitions, promises, and threats of the Law of works, and of the Law of grace do come under distinct notions; as for an instance we may among many places single out this one, let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, and he will abundantly pardon, Esa. 55. 7. * 1.16

But the Law of works doth not say so, but it saith, be not wicked, sin not at all. The Law of grace saith, though thou art wicked and hast sinned, yet for∣sake thy wicked way, and return to the Lord against whom thou hast sinned: The Law of works, saith thou hast sinned, and thou must die, I have no pro∣mise of life or pardon for thee, but the Law of grace, saith, though thou by thy sin hast deserved to die, yet upon condition of repentance and return, thou shalt be pardoned and live:

And saith Mr. Lawson, I touch the more often upon this point, and here I stand the more largely upon it, because some will take no notice of it, others who are sufficiently informed, are hardly perswaded of this dif∣ference; and of the Abrogation of the Law of works, which to a guil∣ty person (as every natural child of Adam is) denies all possibility of sal∣vation.

11. Mr. Holyoke saith, we may understand by the process of the holy story, that the sons of Adam never were, nor are plagued, for not doing a Covenant * 1.17 of works, but for despising Christ, his Gospel and kingdom; That unexpres∣sable plague (saith he) of the confusion of tongues, 2000 years (after the creation) came not, but for despising Christ and his kingdom; and saith he, the Jews are cast off for this, and to this day the Turks, (Heathens) and Papists are destroyed, for the same cause, and the ungodly and unrighteous in reformed Churches; and much more doth he speak to this purpose, both in the place cited, and elsewhere, for this very end; namely, to prove that the Law at mount Sinai, was never given for any other Covenant of salvation, but for a Co∣venant of grace only.

12. In case I had seen it needful, I could have added much more to prove that all the penalties that are threatned, from Gen. 2. 16. to the end of the Bible are threatned as penalties for sins against the Covenant of grace, either on the elect as correctively penal, or on the reprobates as properly penal pu∣nishments, to fulfil the quarrel of the Covenant (not of the Covenant of na∣ture made with Adam; for the quarrel of that Covenant was fully executed on Adam, and on all his natural posterity, as soon as they have life in the womb) but of grace, compare herewith, Lev. 26. 25. with vers. 15. and see more in my exposition, in Jer. 11. 8. in Chap. 6. Sect. 5. and also, in Chap. 10.

13. Let the Reader take notice, that the three last cited authors do expres∣ly affirm, that the Law at mount Si••ai, was given only for a Covenant of grace (represented also under the typical Law of works) and thence they infer that therefore it cannot comprehend the Law of the Covenant of nature, made with Adam, quite contrary to Mr. Nortons first consideration; and so consequently the death threatned in the Covenant of nature, in Gen. 2. 17. must of necessi∣ty, be of a differing kind, from that death that is threatned in the Covenant of grace.

14. Mr. Baxter saith, They that observe not, that it is not the Law made with Adam, but Moses Law, which Paul most frequently mentioneth, and calleth the Law of works, will hardly understand the meaning of Pauls Epistles.

Conclusion.

From the premises it follows, That the Law at mount Sinai, was never given in Mr. Nortons first consideration, namely, not for the Law of the Covenant of nature made with Adam.

Mr. Norto••s second consideration of the Law at mount Sinai Examined.

He saith, that the Law at mount Sinai, was in a second consideration given as a Rule of universal and absolute obedience, obliging man not only unto what was commanded at present, but also unto whatsoever should afterwards be required.

[Reply 9] This assertion is another fundamental error; first, against my foresaid rule of a right exposition; and 2. Against the true meaning of the word Law, at mount Sinai; for first the Law at mount Sinai, doth comprehend, not only the ten Commandments, but the whole oeconomy of Mos••s (for the most of it was given at mount Sinai, Lev. 27. 34.) and thence it follows, that it was gi∣ven for the Law of the Covenant of grace, and not for the moral Law of nature, in an abstracted sense from the Covenant of grace as it was to Adam.

2. I have at large shewed in this Chapter, in Sect. 2. and elsewhere, that God was pleased to make many Arbitrary Laws, and transient Covenants, sometimes with the national Church, and sometimes with particular persons, for their tem∣poral salvation, onely upon condition of performing some one transient act of positive obedience, and that those Laws, and that kind of obedience had no dependance at all on the moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created; and from thence it follows, that the moral Law was not gi∣ven at mount Sinai for a rule of universal and absolute obedience, obliging man unto whatsoever positive obedience God should afterwards require: and of this kind of Arbitrary Laws, was the transient Law of the Covenant of

nature that was made with Adam, in Gen. 2. 17.

3. Mr. Norton doth in the said assertion lay an imputation of folly on Gods moral prefections, in affirming that Adam was obliged by the moral law of his nature, to perform obedience to whatsoever God should afterwards require of him; But these words seem to imply, that Adam in the first instant of his creation did want something of Gods concreated image, of perfect moral obe∣dience, which God might afterwards require of him; But Mr. Walker affirmeth the contrary, for he saith in his Doctrin•• of the Sabbath, in pag. 10. that if A∣dam in his innocency had been obliged to keep every seventh day more holy then the other six days, it would have proved that he had not been created in perfection of nature after Gods image; But tis most certain (saith he) that man in that estate was perfect with natural perfection at all times, equally di∣sposed to obey God, and serve him, he needed no observation of any day to put him in mind of any thing which he had before known, and which God had re∣vealed to him, his memory was perfect, and he knew whatsoever was needful for him to know or do, &c. In a word (saith he) his whole life was a constant and obedient service of God; and there was no inequality or less worship of God in one day then in another, for he fully served God at all times; and saith he, whosoever denies this, must needs therein deny mans perfection, and constant conformity to God, in the state of innocency, for where one day is kept better then another there is inequality, and no constant uniformity in himself, nor conformity to Gods will; this assertion of his, I believe is a clear truth, and from thence I infer that Adam at the first instant of his creation, was so per∣fectly framed in moral obedience, after Gods image and likeness, that no more prefection could be required of him afterwards; and therefore Mr. Nortons said assertion, is very neer a kin to that Socinian tenent which Mr. Burges doth confute; he saith, there is a dangerous book called the Practical Catechisme, that venteth much Socinian poison, in this particular among other things, that Christ added to the Law and perfected it, filled up some vacuities in it; But certainly, saith Mr. B••rges, the Law of God being perfect, and unto which no∣thing must be added, cannot be said to have vacuities in it; and so consequent∣ly it did not oblige to whatsoever God should afterwards require by his arbitrary will, and consequently the moral Law of Adams nature did not oblige him to eat of the tree of life; for such transient, and arbitrary commands as this, have their dependance on the secret will of God only, and not on his Revealed moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created perfect, after the Image of God in moral perfections.

4. Though I doubt not to affirm, that Adam was created after the Image and likeness of God in perfect moral obedience, yet it is as true also that he was not created after Gods Image and likeness, in the like perfection of know∣ledge, and obedience to Gods arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature; no•• yet in the knowledge and obedience of the rest of his transient positive Laws, for then he must have been created in the knowledge and obedience of all Gods secret decrees, and then he could not have sinned against the Law of the Covenant of nature, & then he would have eaten of the tree of the twofold life in the first place, and then he should have been so confirmed against the Devils temptations, that the Devil could not afterwards have deceived him, by any

temptations to do any thing contrary to Gods secret will; But it was the good pleasure of God to reserve the knowledge of his secret will touch∣ing his transient positive Laws to himself until he should think fit to declare them, for the tryal of obedience in this or that particular man, and case.

5. In this second consideration of the Law at mount Sinai, Mr. Norton doth hold forth another Heterodo•• assertion; namely, that by the moral Law of nature in Adam, man doth stand obliged to faith in Christ, conditionally; when God shall call for it. But I have already shewed in the former part of this Chapter, at Reply 2, and 3. that it was not consistent, neither with the moral Law of Adams nature, nor yet with the condition which God made with him in the Covenant of nature to believe in Christ, neither was it consistent with the order of Gods government under the Covenant of nature, to call for it as long as Adam lived under that Covenant, because it is no act of pure nature to believe in Christ as a Redeemer; But tis an act of supernatural grace o••ly, which belongs onely to the order of Gods government, under the Covenant of grace and reconciliation.

6. The Reader must take special notice that Mr. Norton, in this second con∣sideration doth not speak of the Covenant of nature (for he spake of that in his first consideration) but here he speaks only of the moral Law of Adams na∣ture in the which he was created, and therefore, he doth in this place most in∣considerately confound the meer Law of nature, with the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue ••t mount Sinai, for when God gave the Decalogue at mount Sinai, he did at the same time call for faith in Christ; but he did not call for faith in Christ, when he did first ingrave the moral Law in Adams heart: for he did then engrave it in his heart, as a meer Law of na∣ture, without any promise or th••eatning; but when he was pleased to translate it into the Decalogue which was given to man as a Covenant of grace after the fall, then it was given in such a form of words as belongs onely to the Cove∣nant of grace and reconciliation, with a promise of salvation in heaven to all believers, and with a threatning of damnation in hell to all unbelievers, and therefore now the moral Law of nature in the Decalogue, is to shew sin, and to drive the soul to Christ for salvation.

7. I have immediately shewed from Mr. Rutherford, and others, in Reply 8. that the Law at mount Sinai, ought not to be taken in any other consideration, but for the Law of the Covenant of grace onely; which is also further evi∣dent, by Erod. 24. 3, 7, & 12. with vers. 16. fo•• fi••st, in vers. 7. The Law as it comprehends the whole oeconomy of Moses, is called The book of the Cove∣nant, and then, in vers. 8. all the words of it were confirmed with the blood of those sacrifices, that were mentioned, in vers. 5. and then it was called, The blood of the Testament; and thereupon all the precepts of the Law (compre∣hending all the oeconomy of Moses) are called the Testament, in Ebr. 9. 19, 20. both in the Typical, and also, in the Typified sence; and 2. in that respect also, The Law and the Covenant are put for the same things, in 1 Chro••. 16. 17. with Psal. 105. 10. and so also, the Law and the Prophets do speak the very same things, touching faith in Christ, Luk. 24. 44. Mat. 7. 12. Act. 24. 14. and 3. The Law at mount Sinai, doth promise pardon of sin, to all repentant sin∣ners, which is the great blessing of the New Testament, in Exod. 20. 6. with

Exod. 34. 1, 6, 7. and there also this Law is called a Covenant, in vers. 27. 28, even the ten Commandments, as they do also comprehend the Levitical Laws * 1.18 for those Laws, are a part of that Covenant, that was made at mount Sinai, Le••. 7. 38. Lev. 25. 1. Lev. 26. 46. Lev 27. 34. N••m. 25. 6. Deut. 33. 2. Fourthly, This Covenant is also often called, The Law, Exod. 24 12. and because it had a typified, and typical part, it ••s called, The Law of works, and the Law of faith, in Rom. 3. 27. But to observe the outward works of it, without faith in Christ, is not to observe the Law in the right sense of it, at these places do testifie, Deut. 17. 11, 18, 19 Deut. 27. 3▪ 8, 26. Deu••. 29. 29. Deut. 31. 9, 11, 12, 24, 26. with D••u••. 33. 4. Jos. 1. 8, 20. Jos. 22. 5. Jos. 8. 32, 34. 2 Chron. 33 8. Ezra 7. 6. Ezra 10. 29. N••••. 8. 2, 7, 9, 13▪ 14. Psal. 1. 2. Psal. 19. 8. Psal. 78. 1, 5, 10. Psal. 81. 4. Psal. 119. ••, &c. Isa. 2. 3. Isa. 42. 4, 24. Isa. 51. 4, 7. Jer. 31. 32. Mal. 4. 4. Mat. 5. 17, 18. Mat. 22. 36, 40. Luk. 16 16, 17. Joh. 1. 17, 45. Joh. 7. 19, 23. Joh. 11. 34. Joh. 12. 34. Joh. 15. 25. Act. 7. 38, 53. Act. 13. 15, 39. Act. 22. 3, 12. Act. 28. 23. Ro••. 2. 25, 26. Rom. 3. 20, 21. Rom. 7. 12, 14, 22. Ro••. 8. 2. Gal. 2. 19. In all these places the word Law doth relate, to the true sense of the word Law, as it was given at mount Si••ai, for a Covenant of grace and reconciliation, as it is also expounded, in Jer. 7. 22, 23. Compared with Jer. 32. 23. and this very Law in the true substance of it, was given for a Covenant of grace to Abraham, in Gen. 26. 5. 430 years before it was given to the national Church at mount Sinai, Gal. 3. 17. and Eliphaz exhorted Job, long before the Law, as given at mount Sinai, to receive this Law, from his mouth, and to lay up the words of it in his heart, as a ready means to help him to search out his sins, and as a ready means to pro∣voke him to repentance, Job 22. 22, 23. and so in like sort, the Law for the keeping of the Sabbath day, was given to the ancestors of the Jews, before it was given to them at mount Sinai, Exod. 16. 4, 28.

Conclusion.

In case Mr. Nortons threefold consideration of the word Law be observed in all these places, it will make as much confusion in the body of Divinity, as the builders of Babel made in their building, when their languages were con∣founded.

Mr. Nortons third consideration examined.

The Law at mount Sinai (saith he) must be considered as the Covenant of grace it self, though dispensed after a legal manner.

[Reply 10] In this third consideration I do most heartily accord with Mr. Norton, but yet I say also, that he hath put a dead fly into this most precious box of sa••ing truth, by adding these heterodox expressions [Freed from its pure legal nature of co••ctio••, malediction, and justification by works] but I have formerly shewed, that the moral Law of nature, in the which Adam was created, was not given for the matter of Adams obedience to the Covenant of nature, but that it was given him as the meer Law of his nature, without any promise or threatning thereunto annexed: and from thence it followes, that it had no coaction or ma∣lediction belonging to it: But 2. In case Mr. Norton doth speak this of the Co∣venant of nature, unto the which a promise and a threatning was annexed, then I have before shewed, that God did not make the Covenant of nature with him, in relation to his moral obedience or d••sobedience, but in relation to his transient act of positive obedience in eating first of the Tree of life: and 2. I

have also shewed, that the moral Law of nature is now translated into the Co∣venant of grace, both in the Decalogue, and also in the rest of the Bible, not in the abstracted sence, as it was written in Adams heart for the rule of his na∣tural obedience, but as a true part of the Covenant of grace, to shun sin, and to drive to Christ; and theref••re now it hath a binding power annexed to it, (more then it had to Adam during the time of his innocency) of coaction, and also of malediction to all impenitent unbelievers, to force them either to believe in Christ as their Redeemer, or else to damn them. But in this sence the moral Law was not imprinted in Adams heart in the time of his creation, neither are any of the fallen sons of Adam freed from this coaction and malediction, but believers only, who are also justified from all sin formally by Gods forgiveness only: but in the time of Adams moral perfections the moral Law of his nature had no coaction, malediction, or justification by works.

Conclusion.

1. From the premises it followes, that one and the same word Law, in one and the same Text, (many of which I have cited before at N^• 7.) cannot by the rules of a sound exposition comprehend Mr. Norton•• said threefold conside∣ration in it.

Or thus:

One and the same word Law (as given at mount Sinai) cannot comprehend in it his said three differing sorts of Laws.

2. Neither can the word Covenant at mount Sinai comprehend two distinct and opposite sorts of Covenants, as the Covenant of nature and the Covenant of grace are. 3. Therefore seeing Mr. Nor••on hath so grosly transgressed this rule of a sound exposition in his several answers to my Dialogue, he hath most miserably confounded the true sence of the word Law, and the true sence of the word Covenant at mount Sinai: and 4. By that means he hath most miserably confounded the right understanding, 1. Of the great point of Christs satisfa∣ction, and 2. Of the great point of a sinners justification.

SECT. IV.

BUt Mr. Norton proceedeth, and saith in pag. 184.

The observation of the Levitical worship cannot especially be called T••e Law of works, because it is a part of the ceremonial Law; long before which was the Law of works (given to Adam.)

[Reply 11] Both the parts of this assertion, (viz. 1. The affirmative, and 2. The ne∣gative part) are far from the true sence of the blessed Scriptures; and there∣fore they may most fitly be called two master errours, or two grand mis∣leading errours in the body of Divinity.

1. I will examine the affirmative part, viz. that the Covenant made with * 1.19 Adam in the time of his innocency was a Law of works: this plural word Works in that Covenant is no where to be found in all the Bible: but 2. On the con∣••rary I have shewed a little before, at Reply 4. that the Covenant made with Adam did require no more but one single work or act of eating of the Tree of life, for the fulfilling of it: and thence it followes, that it is no fit title to call it a Law of works in the plural. 3. I have also often shewed, that the said Co∣venant

of nature had no continuance, no, not for one moment of time after that Adam had but once transgressed it, by his single work or act of eating of the forbidden fruit, and that nothing of it did remain from that first act of his said eating, but the execution of that threatned punishment of a double Spiri∣tual death to him, and to all his natural posterity successively, as soon as ever they have any life in the womb.

And from thence it followes.

1. That his affirmative part is no better then a meer fiction; and conse∣quently that his first foundation proposition, in pag. 2. (upon the which his whole book is builded) ••s no better then a meer fiction also.

His said proposition is thus in brief.

The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man obeyed the Law (of the extinguished Covenant of nature) as our surety, by doing the command in a way of works, (which command was to do no other work but to eat first of the T••ee of the twofold life) and suffering the essential punishment of the cross, (which was no other but a double Spiritual death, 1. By deprivation of the concreated life of Gods image: and 2. By corrupt••on of nature) in a way of obedient sa∣tisfaction unto divine justice, thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant for our justification: but he might more truly have said; thereby not fulfill••ng the first Covenant, but the fictions of his own brain.

But the Reader that desireth to avoid his errors must

1. Take special notice, that the first Covenant of nature that was made with Adam in the time of his innocency only, hath been utterly entinguished ever since Adam received the threatned punishment of a double Spiritual death, in the first moment of time when he did but first taste of the forbidden fruit.

2. That the Law at mount Sinai was given only for a Covenant of grace and reconciliation, (though it was dispensed after a legal manner) and that 2. It is in that respect called both a Covenant and a Testament, in Exod. 19 5. Exod. 24. 8. 12. and in that sence it must be understood in all those Scriptures which I cited before at N^o 7.

Mr. Baxters caution is here again to be remembred; namely, that it is not the Law made with Adam, but Moses Law that Paul doth most frequently mention, and call the Law of works: but such as are careless to observe this necessary rule of caution, cannot understand the true sence and meaning of Pauls Epistles.

4. Had Mr. Norton been so happy as to have been well insighted into this rule of caution, before he undertook to answer my Dialogue, he would not in wisdom have builded the great point of Christs satisfaction, and the great point of a sinners justification, upon that extinguished Law and Covenant of nature, that was given to Adam in the time of his innocency.

I come no•• to examine the negative part of Mr. Nortons said asserti∣on; namely, that the observation of the Levitical worship cannot espe∣cially be called the law of works.

[Reply 12] I affirm the contrary; namely, that the Levitical worship is especially and only called the Law of works through all the new Testament, and that in a twofold sence.

1. According to the extrinsecal sence of the Covenant of grace at mount Sinai.

2. According to the superstitious sence of the false Apostles.

1. The Lev••tical worship, according to the true intent of Moses Law at * 1.20 mount Sinai, is truly called a Law of works in the extrinsecal sence of the Co∣venant of grace; and in that respect the said Law of works may well be cal∣led the outward part of the Covenant of grace: and according to this sence it is, that Paul calleth the Law our School-master to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, Gal. 3. 24.

2. This Law of works was like Tutors and Governours to the Jews; for the works of the Law taught them to observe a twofold holiness; 1. Of sanctified walking in abstaining from ceremonial pollutions: and 2. In case of ceremoni∣al pollutions the said works of the Law taught them how their bodies might be sanctified or just••fied from their legal and ceremonial sins.

1. They were bound by the Law of works at mount Sinai, to be legally holy in the whole course of their life and conversation, according to the command∣ments and ordinances of the Levitical Law, that so their bodies (at least) might be kept holy from legal pollutions, (though for the present they were not made inwardly holy, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost) Ye shall be unto me men of holiness, and ye shall not eat flesh ••or•• in the field, Exod. 22. 31. Deut. 14. 21. and it is also said in Lev. 11. 44, 45. Ye shall make your sel••e holy, and ye shall be ho∣ly, for I (Jehovah) am holy: and ye shall not make your selv••s unclean by any creeping thing; that is to say, ye shall abstain from legal pollutions, and ye shall shew forth holiness by abstaining from positive pollutions, though but im∣posed on them for a time, as shadows of better things: and so also it is said in Lev. 19. 2. Be ye holy, for I am holy: and then in Lev. 20. 7, 8, 25, 26, 27, he doth * 1.21 instance, that they must abstain from several ceremonial sins, as well as from moral sins: and from thence the Apostle Peter doth draw his exhortation, to be truly holy in all manner of conversation, 1 Pet. 1. 14, 15, 16. But no fallen son of Adam can be so holy in nature, as God is, both by nature and essence; but by the gift of Gods grace they may be holy as his peculiar or selected people. The exhortation therefore is, Be holy from sia in all manner of conversation, as God is. The people of God were compassed round about with profane persons, from whom their corrupt nature was apt to be led into sin; therefore God said, Be ye holy, as I am holy.

2. The Nazarites were commanded to be legally holy, by abstaining from sundry polluted things in their dyet, habit, and conversation, Numb. 6. 3, 4, 5, 8, &c.

3. The fringe of blew, &c. was ordained to be worn on the skirts of their clothes, that they might see it, and remember all the commandments of Jeho∣vah, and do them; (namely, and do them by faith in Christ, for without faith in Christ the outward rite was vain.)

4. Another use of the fringe was, that they might be holy, Numb. 15. 38, 39, 40. This extrinsecal legal holiness was carefully observed by all the national Church; but the inward part of it was not observed by any else, but such only as were truly regenerated by the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost: and in both these sences Zachary and Elizabeth walked unreproveable in all the com∣mandments and ordinances of the Lord, Luke 1. 6. and so did Peter in Acts 10. 14. and Daniel in Chap. 1. 8. and Maymo••y concludeth his Treatise of un∣clean

meats thus: The cleanness of the body bringeth one to the holiness of the soul; (namely) from evil thoughts, and the holiness of the soul is a means to make us like unto the majesty of God, as it is written in Lev. 11. 44. and of this see more in Reply 13.

2. The second kind of holiness that was taught by the outward works of the Law, was expiatory holiness; namely, it was the holiness of justification from the guilt of their ceremonial sins, when their bodies were defiled by any acci∣dent: for when their bodies were defiled with ceremonial sins, they might not * 1.22 dare to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy temple, upon pain e••ther of cutting off, or of death, until they were cleansed, or made holy again, i.e. justifi∣ed from those sins by the appointed works of the Law, Lev. 15. 31. N••mb. 9. 13. Numb. 17. 13. Numb. 18. 22. Numb. 19 13, 20. 2 Chron. 23. 19. 2 Chro••. 30. 18, 19. Exod. 12. 15, 19. Lev. 19. 7, 8. with Lev. 7. 18, 20, 21, 25, 27. Le••. 12. 4. Lev. 20. 3, &c.

2. In case any came into the holy Temple, being ignorant of their guilt of some ceremonial sin or other, then as soon as ••hey knew it, the Law provided a re∣medy; namely, to bring a sin-offering, and to confess their sin to God: and then in case they did so, they had a promise made over to them, that this work of the Law should, Ex opere operato, procure Gods atonement for the formal justification of their body from their sa••d ceremonial sin, and then the threat∣ned punishment of cutting off, or of death should be forgiven them, as these Scriptures do testifie, Lev. 4. 27, 31, 35. Lev. 5. 2, 10, 13, 16, 18. Lev. 6 7. Lev. 19. 22. Lev. 15. 25, 26, 28. and see more of these legal promises and threatnings in Chap 6. Sect. 3. and S••ct. 4.

3. For the avoiding of the said threatned punishments, the whole national Church were exceeding careful to observe the said works of the Law, especially at such times as they were to appear before God in his holy Temple, or when they were to feast on the holy flesh in the holy City, as these Scriptures do te∣stifie, Joh•• 11. 55. Lev. 11. 43, 44. Numb. 8. 6, 7, &c. 2 Chro••. 23. 19. 2 Chro••. 30. 18, 19.

4. * 1.23 Because the whole national Church were exactly careful to observe the said works of the Law, (though there were but few of them that did observe them in the true sence of the Covenant of grace, by faith in Christ) are cal∣led Gods Saints, Psal. 50 5. A holy nation, Exod. 1. 9 6. A holy p••ople, Deut. 7. 6. Esa. 63. 18. A righteous nation, Esa. 26. 2. i.e. a nat on that are continually ju∣stified from the guilt of their ceremonial sins by the works of the Law (and as many as had faith in Christ were also justified or made righteous from the guilt of their moral sins) and in that respect also they are called men of holiness, Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 20. 7, 8, 25, 26. Lev. 11. 44. For the blood of Bulls and Goat••, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh, i.e. to the justifying of their bodies from the guilt of their ceremoni∣al sins: and I conceive it is in relation to these legal justifications, that God is said to see no sin in Israel, Numb. 23. 21. and that it was in relation to these Levitical justifications by the works of the Law, that David said to Abimelech the Priest, that the vessels, i.e. the bodies of the young men were holy, 1 Sam. 21. 5. they were negatively holy in a double respect, 1. Because they had been but newly purified (or justified) from their former ceremonial sins but three

days before, for their more holy observat••on of the new Moon feast, which be∣gan but three days before this conference with David; and they must of neces∣sity be purified then, or else they might not have feasted on the holy flesh of their peace-offerings on that day, as I have shewed more at large in my Trea∣tise of holy time, pag. 25.

2. In another respect David said, that the vessels of the young men were holy, because since the said holy feast they had not been defiled by women, see∣ing they had continued in Davids company from that time till now: his mean∣ing was, that in this space of time they had not been at home with their wives to be defiled by them: for in case they had been at home to have done the act of carnal copulation, they had been legally defiled; for by the Levitical Law that act had a ceremonial sin cleaving to it, 1 Sam. 21. 5. but yet no moral sin did cleave to it, Ebr. 13. 4. 1 Cor. 7 28.

In these two respects David said to the Priest, the vessels of the young men are holy (viz. legally) and therefore in this time of necessity they might law∣fully eat of the holy bread.

In relation to this national Church-covenant-holiness it was, that all their posterity are called a holy seed, Ezra 9. 2. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and a seed of God, Mal. 2. 15. See Ains. in Gen. 17. 13. and in Lev. 12. 7. * 1.24

6. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ from his arbitrary will, to constitute many things at mount Sinai, that were no sin at all against the moral Law, to be ceremonially sinful to the defiling of the Jews bodies only, but not to the defiling of their conscience, that so they might be justified therefrom by the typical works of the Law.

1. Christ ordained, that all such as remained uncircumcised, should, during that space, be ceremonially unclean: and in that respect he made a Law, that no uncircumcised person, (though he might otherwise be truly godly) should presume to come into his holy Temple, or to feast upon any of the holy flesh in the holy City, upon pain of cutting off, or of death, see Ains. in Lev. 12. 4, 8. But by the moral Law an uncircumcised person was not unclean in Gods sight, Acts 10. 28. Acts 11. 3, 18.

2. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ to ordain, that the transient work or act of circumcising the childs foreskin on the eighth day, should purifie, i.e. justifie the body of it from its said ceremonial sin of uncleanness: and 2. This outward act was also ordained to be for a teaching School-master unto Christ, to teach them to circumcise the corrupt lusts and affections of their hearts, by the knife of sound repentance, and by the exercise of their faith in Christs blood, as the only procuring cause of Gods reconciliation, pardon, and forgiveness, to the justifying of their conscience from the guilt of all their mo∣ral sins: and to this sence doth Moses expound the use of circumcision▪ in Deut. 10. 16. and in Deut. 30. 6. For even as the outward act of circumcising the flesh did procure Gods atonement to the formal cleansing of the body from its * 1.25

ceremonial sin of uncleanness, so the circumcising of the heart by sound re∣pentance, and by faith in Christ, did procure Gods atonement to the justifying of the soul from its moral sins.

3. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ, to ordain at mount Sinai, that the lawful and necessary act of copulation with a mans own wife, should defile his body ceremonially; and in that respect that man might not dare (under the penalty of cutting off) to come into Gods holy Temple, or to eat of the ho∣ly flesh of their passeover and peace-offerings in the holy City, until his body was purified, i.e. justified from his said ceremonial sin by the appointed works of the Law; namely, by washing his body: see Ains. in Lev. 15. 18. Exod. 19. 14, 15. 1 Sam. 21. 5.

4. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ to ordain at mount Sinai▪ that the natural and healthful purgings of married women (wherein there is no moral sin) should be a ceremonial sin to the defiling of the body: (but yet the said natural purgins in Virgins was not ordained to be any ceremonial sin to them: see Ains. in Lev. 15. 19.) and therefore married women might not (un∣der the penalty aforesaid) come into Gods holy Sanctuary, or feast on the holy flesh, until their bodies were first purified (or justified) from their said cere∣monial sin by the typical works of the Law.

5. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ to ordain at mount Sinai, that the natural and healthful purgings of women in childbed, should be ceremoni∣ally (but not morally) sinful, to the defiling of their bodies for many days to∣gether, though after the first seven days of a male, and after the first fourteen days of a female, if they were but washed they were clean for their husbands society, but not for Gods Temple; no, though all their separated natural pur∣gings were ceased and dried up, Lev. 12. 4. until forty days were expired of a male, and eighty of a female: yea, he did also ordain, that this ceremonial sin of uncleanness should be so contagious, that whosoever did but touch them in any part of the first seven days, might not presume to come into the holy Tem∣ple, under the foresaid penalty, until their bodies were first purified, i.e. justi∣fied from that sin by the appointed works of the Law, Lev. 12. 2, &c.

6. It was the good pleasure of Jesus Christ at mount Sinai, to prohibit the national Church from the eating of sundry sorts both of flesh and fish (that were otherwise good food by creation) (as the prohibited Tree also was, in Gen. 2. 17.) and which were also lawfully eaten by their forefathers, as it is also well observed by Ains. in Gen. 9. 3.). And in case any did eat of the said prohibited sorts of flesh or fish, their bodies should thereby be defiled with sin ceremonially; in which respect they might not dare to come into Gods holy Temple, under the foresaid penalty, until their bodies were cleansed, i.e. justified from their said ceremonial sin by the appointed works of the Law, Lev. 11. 25, 40. Lev. 17. 15, 16. Deut. 14. 2, &c.

7. Jesus Christ made it a sin at mount Sinai to touch a dead body; yea, though it were done as a most necessary duty by the nearest relation to further its burial, and such persons also might not presume to go into Gods holy Tem∣ple, under the penalty aforesaid, until their bodies were cleansed, i.e. justified from their said ceremonial sin by the appointed works of the Law, Numb. 19.

8. Christ Jesus did also ordain at mount Sinai, that whosoever did but touch

such as had issues or leprosies, though they were necessitated to touch them out of a dutiful respect to the command of the moral Law to relieve them, yet their bodies should thereby be defiled with sin ceremonially, and therefore they might not presume to come into Gods holy Temple, under the penaly aforesaid, until their bodies were justified from their said▪ ceremonial sin by the appointed works of the Law: see Ains. in Lev. 14. and in Lev. 15.

9. Christ Jesus made it a sin at mount Sinai, for the Nazarites to cut their hair, or to eat any grapes, or to drink any wine; and therefore in case they did, they might not come into the holy Sanctuary, until their bodies were ju∣stified from their said ceremonial sins, by the appointed works of the Law, Numb. 6. and if it were needful, many such like instances might be added.

A further declaration of the Law of works, which Christ ordained to cleanse the bodies of the national Church from their ceremonial sins.

[Reply 13] 1. The most common works of the Law, which Christ ordained for the ju∣stifying of the bodies of the national Church from their ceremonial sins, was * 1.26 by washing or baptizing their whole body in water: see Ains. in Lev. 15. 11, 12.

2. But yet Jesus Christ ordained, that they should not be cleansed from some sorts of ceremonial sins, except they did baptize their bodies in living or in spring water only, Lev. 15. 13.

3. Jesus Christ ordained, that they should not be justified from some sorts of ceremonial sins, unless they did wash their garments as well as their bodies, because some sorts of ceremonial sins should be so contagious, that they should defile their garments as well as their bodies: and in that respect he command∣ed that they should wash their garments for the effecting of their bodily justi∣fication, before they might presume to come with acceptation into Gods holy Temple, Lev. 11. 25, 28, 40. Lev. 13. 6, 24. Lev. 14. 8, 9, 47. Lev. 15. 5, 6, 7, 8, &c. Numb. 8. 7, 10, 21. N••mb. 19. 7, 8, &c.

4. Jesus Christ also ordained, that they should not be fully justified from four sorts of ceremonial sins, by the washing of their garments and of their bodies, unless they did adde to those works another work of the Law; namely, a sin-offering.

• 1. The woman that hath an issue.
• 2. The man that hath an issue, Lev. 15.
• 3. The woman in childbed.
• 4. The leper, Lev. 14.

Every one of these, say the Ebrew Doctors, although they be cleansed and baptized, and their Sun be set, yet are they wanting, and their cleansing is not fulfilled, so as they may eat of the holy things, until they have brought their oblation: see Ains. in Lev. 12. 6. and when they brought their oblation to the Temple, they might not go any further into the holy ground, then unto the Court-yard of the Temple, where they must impose their hands upon the head of their sacrifice, which none else might do but a clean person only: see Ains. in Exod. 29. 10. for they were in part cleansed by washing though not fully, till they had brought their sacrifice: but no uncleanness was done away without washing; and in that respect Rab. Menachem said, uncleanness is not done away but by water: see Ains. in Lev. 14. 3. And 2. To this effect doth Dr. Ligh foot

speak in his Temple service, pag. 12. whosoever (saith he) came within the holy ground, being unclean, and knowing of it, and yet would presume to come in, (namely, before he were washed) he incurred the guilt of cutting off, ipso facto. 3. The Ebrew Doctors say, the man or the woman that hath an issue, and the menstruous, and the woman in childbed, are unclean for ever, and do defile men, and vessels, and seat, and saddle, until they be baptized, although they tarry ma∣ny years, and have no appearance of any uncleanness; yet if they be not ba∣ptized, (i.e. ceremonially washed) they are still in their uncleanness: see Ains. in Lev. 15. 12. and Lev. 11. 32. because they were not fully justified for the holy Temple, until they had brought their oblation.

5. I have before shewed in Reply 12. that in case any came into the holy Temple, being ignorant of their guilt of some ceremonial sin or other, then as soon as they knew it, Jesus Christ ordained, that they should bring their sin-offering, and confess their sin to God; and then this work of the Law had a promise annexed to it, that it should (Ex opere operato) procure Gods atone∣ment for the formal justification of their body from their said ceremonial sin, and then the threatned punishment of cutting off should be forgiven them, Lev. 4. 2, 13, 27, 31, 35. Lev. 5. 2, 10, 13, 16, 18. Lev. 6. 7. Lev. 19. 22. Lev. 15. 25, 26, 28.

6. Jesus Christ ordained at mount Sinai, that they should not be cleansed, i.e. justified from some sins of uncleanness, but by the ashes of an Heifer sprink∣ling the unclean, to the purifying of the flesh, i.e. to the justifying of the body Ebr. 9. 13. so that without water no sort of uncleanness was cleansed.

7. The infant could not be justified from the uncleanness which it had in its birth, but by circumcision, as I noted it before in Reply 12. at N^o 6.

8. I do not question but several other works of the Law might be produced for the justification of the body from ceremonial sins, if it were needful.

9. These works of the Law were chiefly ordained, that they might be for a teaching School-master to Christ, that so they might be justified morally only by faith in Christ, Gal. 3. 24. and in that respect I call these works of the Law, the outward typical part of the Covenant of grace, being ordained to serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things: for when Moses was about to make the Tabernacle, God admonished him, saying, See thou make all things * 1.27 according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount, Ebr. 8. 5. and so consonant thereto, when God ordained a ceremonial justification for the body, from the guilt of ceremonial sins by their bodily doing of the works of the Law, he said to Moses and Aaron, See that thou instruct the people, touching the point of justifi∣cation from their moral sins, according to the typical pattern that was shewed to thee in mount Sinai; for saith the Apostle, It was necessary that the pattern of things in the Heavens should be purified (i.e. justified from sin) with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these, Ebr. 9. 23. This

inference from the typical purifying to the typified justification from sin, doth inform all that are w••lling to learn from this School-master, wherein the right order and method of a sinners justification from moral sins doth consist.

And 2. The Apostle doth tell all such as are willing to learn, that not only the Lev••tical washings did pur••fie▪ the body from ceremonial sins; but also, that the blood of bulls and goats did sanctifie, (i.e. make the body holy from ce∣remonial sins) to the purifying of the flesh (i.e. to the justifying of the bo∣dy from their said ceremonial sins,) Eb••. 9. 13. And so from this typical justi∣fication, the Apostle doth draw this heavenly inference, in vers. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who offered himself through the eternal Spirit, without spot to God, purge, (i.e. just••fie) your conscience from dead works, to serve the liv••ng God.

3. The same Apostle doth tells us, in Rom. 8. 3. that what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh (namely through its carnal or bo∣dily works, for those works tended but to the justification of their bodies from ceremonial sins; and therefore those works are called carnal justifications, in Ebr. 9. 10.) that did God do, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful f••esh (namely in the likeness of a sinful malefactor, for Sathan had a liberty of power given him, in Gen. 3. 15. to pierce him in the footsoles on the cross in the like∣ness of a notorious sinful malefactor; but Gods intent in giving Sathan t••at li∣berty of power, was but to manifest the perfection of Christs obedience in his death and sacrifice under those ignominious sufferings, Phil. 2. 8.) [And for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,] namely, for his sacrifice for sin, God first condemned the after use of all legal sin-offerings, because they were too weak to purifie, or justifie the conscience from moral sins; and 2. God did thereby condemn the guilt, or the condemning power of all moral sins to all be∣lievers.

4. The same Apostle doth also tell us; That by Christ, all that believe, are * 1.28 justified from all things, (namely, from all moral sins,) From which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses, Act. 13. 39. Implying thereby that they might be justified from some sins, by doing the bodily works of Moses Law, namely, they might be justified from their ceremonial sins, but not from their moral sins; for Moses Law was never intended to be for justi∣fication from moral sins; it is from mens superstitious conceits in all ages to think so.

5. Dr. Gouge saith, (in Ebr. 9. pag. 300.) The word translated ordinan∣ces, in Ebr. 9. 1, 10. Is by some rendred justifications, that is Expiations; which being legally and externally taken, were effects of their rites and ceremonies; for saith he, by their many sacrifices and oblations, by their water of purifica∣tion, and such other rites, they were legally cleansed; and so expiations (or justifications) were thereby made, Lev. 4. 20, 26, 31, 35. Num. 19. 19. And saith he, in pag. 339. This Greek word translated ordinances, or justifications, or expiations, is so done upon two grounds, 1. because the performers of these legal rites, were thereby legally cleansed; and 2. because they prefigured a true expiation: (or justification,) but (saith he) because they could not, in, and by themselves cleanse the conscience, the Apostle, in vers. 10. stileth

them ordinances of the flesh, or carnal justifications; now (saith he) carnal is opposed to spiritual, 1 Cor. 3. 1. and that is counted Spiritual, which is, 1. Inward * 1.29 in the soul, 2. Heavenly and Divine, 3. Firm and stable, 4. Perpetual and durable; and on the other side carnal things, are 1. Outward, 2. Earthy, 3. Alterable, 4. Momentary; and thus the legal ordinances are called carnal (justifications) And saith he, in pag. 336. The Apostle doth con∣vince them of the impotency of their legal rites, in Ebr. 9. 9. In that they could not make perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, (namely, they could not justifie the conscience from sin) and that he doth render the reason thereof, in vers. 10. taken f••om the nature of those rites, namely, because they con∣cerned the external part of man onely, and therefore could not give full satis∣faction to the conscience; And saith he, these external things are fo••r in num∣ber, 1. Meats, 2. Drinks, 3. Washings, 4. Ordinances of the flesh. 1. By meats, he means meat-offerings, and other meats, that were distinguished from such as were legally unclean, 2. Drink-offerings, E••od. 29. 40. Lev. 23. 8. and such other drinks, as were allowed, or forbidden to the priests and Nazarites, Jud. 13. 4. Lev. 11, 34. these defiled onely, as concerning the flesh, Ebr. 9. 13. 3. Washings▪ for all that were made legally unclean, were to bathe them∣selves in water, Lev. 15. 6. &c. Lev. 6. 27, 28. Num. 19. 13, &c. 4. Or∣dinances called also justifications of the flesh, in vers. 10. and these ordinances are applied to (positive) Commandments, which are st••led carnal command∣ments, in Ebr. 7. 16. Consisting of outward, Earthly, alterable, and momen∣tary matters made with mens hands, called flesh, Gal. 3. 3. and the J••w are said to be in bondage under these elements, Gal. 4. 3. and they are also cal∣led in vers. 9. weak and beggerly elements, because they had nothing in them that could make men thrive in grace, and be rich in God; and 4. they are stiled shadows, Col. 2. 17.

Now the Law as it consisted of these external matters, separated from Christ and from the spiritual truth, was but carnal; but yet in respect of the inward typified part of it, it had a high account among the Saints, until all things ty∣pified thereby were accomplished by Christ; and thus these typical justificati∣ons were ordained, to be as a teaching schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith in him.

6. This pattern of a sinners justification, from moral sins, was familiarly known to the godly Jews of old, namely, to the Doctors next after Ezra, as it is evident by some of their speeches, that are yet on record in some of the Ancient Rabbins; 1. Rab. Menachem sheweth in Lev. 11. these things beneath are an∣swerable to things above, and that those above have their figures here beneath; and 2. That by unclean beasts, the heathens of the world are meant (just * 1.30 according as it was shewed to Peter in a vision, in Act. 10. 12, 28.) 3. That the cleansing with water did signifie the water that is above, which is the water of mercy (meaning thereby, The water of Gods mercifull atonement, and for∣giveness

for the sake of Christs sacrifice according to Za••h. 13. 1. and Ez••k. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, and from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you; and this water of mercy did David most fervently beg of God, for the full purifying of his soul from sin, that so he might be made whiter then any snow in Gods sight, see Ains. in Lev. 14. 3. and in Psal. 51.) 4. The Ebrew Doctors speaking of washing their garments, give this reason for it; namely, because it is necessary to do away uncleaness (from moral sins) by the waters that are on high, see Ains. in Lev. 6. 27. and in Psal. 51. 1, 2, 3, 7. Zach. 13. 1. Isa. 4. 4. Rev. 1. 5. Rev. 22. 1. Ebr. 10. 22. John 7. 38, 39, &c.

5. Maymo••y, doth thus conclude his treatise of unclean meats; The clean∣ness of the body (saith he) bringeth one unto the holiness of the soul from ev••l thoughts: and the holiness of the soul, is a means to make us like unto the majesty (of God) as it is written, and ye shall make your selves ho∣ly, for I the Lord that make you holy, am holy (Exod. 22. 31.) see Anis▪ in Lev. 11. 44.

I intreate the Reader to take special notice how the Ancient Ebrew Doctors did call their cleanness from sin by Gods merciful forgiveness, the holiness of soul; and this negative holiness, by Gods forgiving of the evil thoughts of the soul is consonant to the typical sense of the Apostle, in Ebr. 9. 13. He saith, that the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, doth sanctifie, or make holy from ceremonial sins; and so it is in like sort said, that when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed, it was justified as the Ebrew is in Dan. 8. 14. and so, in Job. 4. 17. shall mortal man be more justified (from sin) then God? or as it is in the 70, be more undefiled then God; and so God saith to all Israel, in Levit. 19. 2. Ye shall be holy for I Jehovah your God am holy; namely, ye shall be negatively holy (as God is) from sin; by Gods atonement through your faith in Christ; of which I have spoken also, in Reply 12.

7. The ancient Ebrew Doctors did also say, and believe, That all the typical works of Moses Law, should be abolished in the days of Messias, and that all unclean meats should then become clean, see Anis. in Gene. 9. 3.

8. The ancient Ebrew Doctors have this remarkable observation from the liberties of the year of Jubile; That the Divine Majesty will be to Israel in a Jubile; Freedo••, Redemotion, and Finisher of Sabbaths; this is Recorded by H. Bro. in his Sinai sight, and in his Require of Concent, pag. 13.

9. They understood that Circumcision was more then a carnal sign, as it appeareth by the words of the book called Zohar; cited by Ains. in Gen. 17. 11. ult. 14. 23. they understood it to be a sign and seal of justification••, from sin, by faith, in the promised seed, Rom. 4. 11. therefore they which deny the baptising of infants, because as they say, circumcision was but a carnal sign, of carnal promises to a carnal seed; they may see that the Jews own testimo∣nies do abundantly refute them. God said circumcise to me all your male children, (this was a sign,) Gen. 17. 8. and he said also I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, this is the signification of the sign, Deut. 30. 6.

10. They rested not in the letter of the Law, but looked also into the spi∣ritual sense of the letter of the ten Commandments, as it is also shewed, by Ai••s. in Exod. 20. 6. and in Lev. 26. 10. and by Duplessis, in the Trueness of Religion, pag. 547.

11. Duplessis saith, in his Trueness of R••ligion, pag. 545. The cabal it self giveth us to understand, That Christ shall cure the venom of the Serpent, make a new Covenant, and take away the necessity of Circumcision; and saith he, in pag. 546. some of the Rabbins say, that sacrifices shall cease, saving the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; And they say of the Sabbath, that he that bringeth the Commandment from God (as Christ did) may also break it, (as Christ also did, in Mark 2. 28.) And saith Rab. Jonathan, in the Thal∣mud, in whatsoever a Prophet biddeth thee transgress, obey him, sa••ing in ido∣latry; for all the rest are things that may be changed by a Prophet, according to occasion and time.

Conclusion from the Premises.

1. That the Levitical worship, is especially and only called, The Law of works, in the New Testament.

2. That the Law of works was ordained at mount Sinai, to be the typical part of the Covenant of grace and reconciliation, and to be for a typical pat∣tern of the souls justification, from moral sins by the procuring cause of Christs blood, and by the formal cause of Gods atonement, upon condition of the sin∣ners faith in Christ.

3. That therefore it was a fundamental error in the false Apostles to teach that the outward observation of the Levitical rites, did not only justifie the body from ceremonial sins, but the soul also from moral sins, and that the said rites were given to be as a necessary appendix to faith in Christ.

But on the contrary the Apostle taught, that the said rites had no power gi∣ven them to justifie the conscience from moral sins, Ebr. 9. 9. Ebr. 10. 4, 11. But by Christ (saith he) all that believe are justified from all things (namely from all the matter of moral sins) from the which ye could not be justi∣fied by the Law of Moses, namely, not by the works of Moses Law, Act. 13. 39. and in this respect it is, that he disputes against justification, by the work of cir∣cumcision, in Act. 15. 1, &c.

4. Paul told the Jews, in Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of faith; the works of the Law may be done for the justification of the body from cere∣monial sins ex opere operato, without any faith in Christ at all. But the Apo∣stle doth not mean that the Law in the spiritual sense of it, is not of faith, but in that sense it is the same doctrine of faith, that is taught in the New Testa∣ment; but of this, see more at Reply 16. N^o. 7. and in Chap. 7. Sect. 2.

SECT. V.

BUt still Mr. Norton doth proceed, saying, in pag. 186.

God propounded the Law of works to man, before the fall with promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience.

[Reply 14] First, I have shewed, in Chap. 1. Sect. 4. That the promise of life in the Covenant of nature was not made to Adam, for a life in heaven, but only for the confirmation of his concreated natural life, after Gods image, in moral per∣fections, to be continued for ever, in the sweet contents of an earthly pa∣radise.

2. I have shewed, in Chap. 1. and also, in Chap. 4. that the Covenant made with Adam, was not made with him on condition he did not sin against the moral Law of his nature; for he could not possibly will to sin against that Law; until he had first lost his moral perfections, by being deprived thereof, for his sinning against Gods transient positive Law, by his act of eating first of the forbidden fruit.

3. I have shewed before in Reply 4. that it is a dangerous misleading title to call the Covenant of nature, a covenant of works in the plural, seeing it re∣quired no more but one work, or act of eating of the tree of life, for the fulfil∣ling of it, and it forbad no more, but once eating of the tree of knowledge, for the utter breaking of that Covenant.

4. That as soon as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit, he did in the same moment of time receive the threatned punishment of a twofold spi∣ritual death; and thereupon that Covenant was for ever after extin∣guished.

Conclusion.

From hence it follows that Mr. Nortons misunderstanding of the true nature of the Covenant of nature made with Adam, is the only cause of his misunder∣standing, 1. of many Scriptures, 2. of the great point of Christs satisfaction, and 3. of the great point of a sinners justification, as he hath expressed it in his first proposition, in pag. 2.

But saith Mr. Norton, in pag. 187.

The matter of justification is the same in both Covenants, viz. Legal obedience.

[Reply 15] I deny it to be the same, 1. because the Covenant made with Adam, was not made in relation to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a positive Law. * 1.31

2. Because the Covenant of nature was extinguished and made utterly null as soon as Adam had lost the rectitude of his nature by eating of the forbidden fruit. And thence it follows, that it can be no less then a meer fiction to affirm, that the obedience of Christ to that transient, and now nullified Co∣venant should be the matter of a sinners justification, under the Covenant of re∣conciliation.

3. But in case it could be supposed, that the Covenant made with Adam, is still in being (which cannot be granted, because it is not true,) Yet then it will be

no small absurdity to call that Covenant, and the Covenant of reconciliation; [Both Covenants] as if both those differing Covenants, had the same matter for a sinners justification.

4. Though it is granted that the Apostle doth speak of two Covenants, in the * 1.32 point of justification, in Gal. 4. 24. yet he doth not make the Covenant of na∣ture made with Adam, to be any of those two Covenants; but the two Cove∣nants that the Apostle speaks of, in Gal. 4. 24. are 1. The typical Covenant of reconciliation by the works of the Law, and 2. The typified Covenant of reconciliation by faith in Christ onely; and both these Covenants are but one in a true spiritual sense, (of which see more, in Chap. 6. Sect. 5.) and both these Covenants were ordained for the justification of sinners, as I have shewed before, at Reply 13. But yet they were not ordained for the same subject matter of justification; for I have shewed before, and often elsewhere; that the first said typical Covenant, was ordained onely for their bodily justification from their ceremonial sins by the typical works of the Law ex opere operato, and 2. It was ordained to be for a typical pattern of true justification, from moral sins, to such persons only as do truly believe in Christ, the procuring cause of Gods atonement; But the false Apostles did not mark this distinction between the typical, and the typified justification, but they did confound them: for they taught believing Gentiles, that their legal justification, by the out∣ward works of the Law was of necessity to be observed, together, with their faith in Christ, for the justification of their souls from moral sins, or else that they could not be saved, Act. 15. 1. Gal. 4. But the Apostle Paul doth tell them that this typical Covenant of works did engender to bondage, and thereupon he did exhort the believing Gentiles to stand fast in that liberty, wherewith Christ had made them free from that yoak of bondage (the observation of Levitical works) and thence it follows, that justification from moral sins belonged to such only as have faith in Christ; and in this respect the Apostle called such as held justification from moral sins, by faith in Christ only, the children of the free-woman.

5. In case the Covenant made with Adam, had been still in being as the matter of a sinners justification, then the Apostle should have called them, three Covenants; or else he did much forget himself, when he called them but two Covenants, in the point of justification; but seeing he doth call them, but two Covenants, it doth from thence follow, that the Covenant made with Adam is none of those two, and therefore it is an undeniable proof that the Covenant made with Adam, is extinguished, and not now in being.

6. I have also shewed that the typical works of the Law were ordained to * 1.33 be a teaching pattern, or a teaching School-master of true justification by faith in Christ, Gal. 3. 24. and in that respect the Apostle doth affirm, that the peo∣ple were taught the Law, Ebr. 7. 11. and 2. The Apostle saith, in Ebr. ••. 6. That the Covenant at mount Sinai, was established [or Taught] upon better promises, (so Ains. doth translate this text, in Exod. 24. 12.) namely, better then the legal promises, which are cited at Reply 12. because they are made onely to such as have true faith in Christ. 3. God said thus to Moses, in Exod. 24. 12. I will give thee tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which I have written, [to teach them,] namely, to teach them to believe in

Christ onely for their true justification from their moral sins, and God said, in Deut. 4. 1. Hearken unto the statutes, and unto the judgements which I teach you for to do, that ye may live; but God did not teach them to do his statutes and judgements, with bodily exercise onely, for he declares his hatred against that kind of worship, in Isa. 1. and from thence it follows, that when God ordained the typical works of the Law, for the justification of their bo∣dies from their ceremonial sins, he did it not so much for the good of their bo∣dies; but as a School-master to Christ, for the good of their souls chiefly, that so it might be for an external teaching pattern of the true way and me∣thod of their souls justification, from moral sins, by faith in Christ; as it is also rightly observed, by Mr. Woodbridge; Christians (saith he) attain that * 1.34 righteousness by faith, which the Jews sought after by works, as the Apostle doth more largely express it, in Rom. 9. 31, 32. Fourthly, God bade Moses bear the people as a nursing father doth the sucking childe, Nam. 11. 12. The Chaldy that goeth in the name of Jo••athan, and Thargum Jerusalemy, calleth this nursing father Pedagoga, which name Paul useth, when he saith, The Law was our Pedagogue, or our (tutoring, or teaching) School-master unto Christ, Gal. 3. 24. And Moses made this answer unto God, by way of interrogation; have I begotten these as if he had said, I am but the minister of the Law in the letter, and in the outward type only, which begets no children to God, Rom. 7. 4, 5, &c. Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 4. 24. I conclude therefore with Paul, that the ty∣pical works of the Law were ordained to no other end but to be as a teaching School-master unto Christ, that so they might thereby be begotten unto true faith, and that so they might by faith in Christ onely be justified, Gal. 3. 24.

It is observable, that the said typical pattern was a teaching School-master of true justification, in three particulars.

1. The national Church were commanded to do the works of the Law as the only condition that was required on their part, for their bodily justification from their ceremonial sins; and accord••ng to this pattern, the onely condition that is required of all the elect Israel of God, for their eternal justification from mo∣ral sins, is faith onely in the death of Christ, Gal. 3. 24.

2. As the blood of bulls, &c. was ordained by Gods free Covenant to be typically meritorious, for the justifying of the bodies of the national Church from their ceremonial sins, Ebr. 9. 10. 13. so in vers. 14. the blood of Christ was ordained to be much more truly meritorious to procure Gods atonement, for the purging, or for the justifying of the conscience from the dead works of moral sins.

3. As the blood of bulls did procure Gods atonement for the formal justi∣fication of their bodies, from the guilt of their ceremonial sins; so the bloody death and sacrifice of Christ, which he performed in perfection of obedience to his Fathers will, Ebr. 10. is much more meritorious to procure Gods atone∣ment and forgiveness, for the formal justification of all believers from the guilt of all their moral sins, and so to the obtaining of the heavenly in∣heritance.

In these three particulars, the works of the Law were ordained to be for a teaching School-master unto Christ, touching the order of ju∣stification

to the souls of all believing sinners.

But I wonder where Mr. Norton can finde the like teaching pattern of his matter of justification, by the moral Law of nature: surely no where! except it be in the proud Pharisee, Luke 18. 9. or in the ficti∣ons of his own brain; but doubtless in case the obedience of the moral Law of nature had been ordained to be the matter of a sinners justification, it would not have been omitted in the typical works of Moses Law, seeing that Law was ordained to be for a teaching School-master unto Christ for justification by faith, Gal. 3. 24.

7. From the premises it follows, that in case Christ did fulfil the Law of * 1.35 works for the justification of believing sinners as their surety, then it must ei∣ther be by those typical and outward works of the Law which were ordained at mount Sinai, for the bodily justification of the national Church from their ceremonial sins (for there was no other Law of works known to the Jews,) or else it must be by Christs fulfilling of the internal works of the said Law, (the principal whereof is faith in Christ) and then faith in Christ must be the matter of a sinners justification, which assertion is neer a kin to the Socinia•• tenent.

8. I Reply further in the words of Mr. Woodbridge; If God (saith he) by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam, doth stand still engaged to give life (supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience) then doth that covenant made with Adam, stand still in force, as the onely way to life; and then men (at least the elect) are legally in strict justice, as innocent as if they had never sinned; both which (saith he) are desperately false and over∣throw the very foundations of faith; And saith he, in pag. 252. Christ died not to repair the old Covenant, nor by removing hinderances to make us capeable of the influences of life and love, in that way in the which they should have been derived to us, by the first Covenant; But therefore died he, that by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions, he might become the new and living way, through which we might come to God by faith, and partake of life and remission of sins, Ebr. 9. 15. with Ebr. 10. 17, 20, 22.

But the said new and living way is not opposed to the first Covenant made with Adam; But onely to the old typical Covenant of works, that was made with the national Church at mount Sinai; which is now abolished by the death of Christ; and so consequently, there is no other Covenant, neither now nor heretofore in force, for justification and salvation, but the new Covenant onely, Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. the Law of nature was never given as a Covenant of justification, for an eternal life in heaven, as I have shewed, in Chap. 1. Sect. 4.

9. In case it should be granted (which cannot be granted, because it is not true) that Christ our surety had done the command of the Covenant of nature ••ade with Adam (as Mr. Norton affirms in his first foundation proposition,)

then he must have made a voyage into the earthly paradise of Eden to fulfil the command of that Covenant by eating of the tree of life, to obtain thereby the confirmation of Adams moral perfections, for the continuance of his natu∣ral life, in the sweet contents of an earthly paradise; for no other life was promised in that Covenant; and 2. In case he had been our surety to suffer the curse of that Covenant for our redemption (as Mr. Norton affirms in his said proposition,) then he must have been deprived of the concreated image of God, and so consequently, he must have been punished with Adams spiritual death in sinful and corrupt qualities, for this double kind of death was the onely death that was threatned in that Covenant; such hiddeous conse∣quences do necessarily flow from his material cause of a sinners justifica∣tion.

10. Let it be considered, why God commanded sacrifices to be offered with∣out blemish and without spot; and it is evident, that the onely reason was, not so much to typifie the perfection of Christ•• humane nature, in his Conception and birth, but especially to typifie the perfection of his Priestly obedience in his death and sacrifice, and this perfection of his obedience was decalred, by his perfect patience, in and through all his consecrating sufferings, according to Gen. 3. 15. and then in the perfection of that obedience, he made his death to be accepted as a most pleasing and acceptable sacrifice, for the procuring of Gods reconciliation to all believing sinners, (Ebr. 7. 26. Ebr. 9. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 19.) for their formal justification from all sin, Rom. 5. 19. But this per∣fect righteousness of his, was not ordained to be imputed by God to believing sinners, for their material, or formal righteousness, no more then the unble∣mishedness, and the spotlesiness of the beast for sacrifice, was ordained to be im∣puted to the sinner that presented it to the Priest, either for his material, or for his formal legal righteousness; and yet notwithstanding, though it was not in that sort made his righteousness, it was in another sort made his righteousness; namely, because it was ordained to be accepted of God for the typical meritorious cause of Gods atonement, by the which the sinner was formally justified from his ceremonial sins; and so consequently the thing that was imputed to the sinner for his justification, was not the matter of the natural purity of the beast sacrificed; but it was Gods atonement that was thereby procured, by the which his sins were forgiven, and his person received into Gods favour; and just after this sort, sinners are justified, not by the imputation of Christs na∣tural or actual purity, for though he is truly called our righteousness, or our justification, 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet he is there so called, in respect of his righteous performance of his death, and sacrifice, which God had ordained to be accept∣ed, for the onely meritorious cause of his atonement to believing sinners, by the which atonement so procured their sins are forgiven, and their persons thereby justified, and received into Gods special favor to the fruition of the heavenly in∣heritance.

And this obedience of Christ is in special manner called his righteousness, in John 16. 10. and it is called, The righteousness of one; namely, of Christ, in Rom. 5. 18. For the which God highly exalted him, or rewarded him, Phil. 2. ••, &c. But to affirm that this special kind of righteousness is imputed to sin∣ners for the matter of their righteousness, is a•• much as to make them their

own priestly mediators by Gods imputation, which is more then a little absurd to affirm.

11. Mr. Lawson propounds this question: Whether the propitiation of Christ, * 1.36 which includes both satisfaction and merit, be to be ascribed to the active or the passive obedience of Christ?

He answers thus at N^o 2. The Scriptures usually ascribe it to the blood, death, and sacrifice of Christ, and never to the personal active obedience of Christ to the moral Law.

3. That yet this active obedience is necessary, because without it he could not have offered that great sacrifice of himself without spot unto God: and if it had not been without spot, it could not have been propitiatory and effectual for expiation.

4. That if Christ our surety had performed for us perfect and perpetual obe∣dience, so that we might have been judged to have perfectly and fully kept the Law by him, then no sin could have been chargable upon us, and so the death of Christ had been needless and superfluous.

5. Christs propitiation frees the believer not only from the obligation of pu∣nishment of sence, but of loss, and procured for him not only deliverance from evil deserved, but the enjoyment of all good necessary to our full happiness; there∣fore there is no ground of Scripture for that opinion, that the death of Christ doth free us from punishment, and that by his active obedience imputed to us, we are made righteous and heirs of life.

6. If Christ did perform perfect and perpetual obedience for us, then we are freed not only from sin, but from obedience to; and this obedience as distinct and separate from obedience unto death may be pleaded for justification of life, for the tenour of the Law was this, Do this and live; and therefore if a man do this by himself or surety, and the Law-giver and supream Judge accept it, the Law-giver can require no more: it could not bind us to perfect obedi∣ence and punishment to: there never was any such Law made by God or just men.

All these assertions of his are point blank against so many of Mr. Nortons assertions.

2. Hence the Reader may take notice, that Mr. Lawson denies the active obedience of Christ to be the matter of our justification.

7. Mr. Lawson propounds this Quere, in pag. 311. whether there be two parts of justification; namely, remission, and imputation of righteousness; and he answers thus:

1. It may be remembred what I have said formerly against the imputation of Christs active righteousness, separated or abstracted for reward from the passive.

2. Saith he, if we examine the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and other Scriptures, we shall find, (if I very much mistake not) that remission and imputation of righteousness are taken for the very same, Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5. even as David describeth also the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righ∣teousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. vers. 6, 7, 8. and therefore it was imputed to him [for righteousness) &c.

8. Saith he, this imputation of righteousness is the forgiveness of sin; for to have faith counted, or imputed for righteousness, is explained by David to have sin forgiven, covered, and not imputed.

9. Saith he, the estate of the party justified, even in this life is blessed and very happy: Blessed is he whose sin is forgiven, &c.

10. The party to whom righteousness is imputed, is he that believeth on him that raised up Christ from the dead, not he that believeth that Christ per∣formed perfect obedience active to the Law in his person: for though he per∣fectly obeyed the Law, as without which he could not have offered himself an unspotted sacrifice for us, yet he did it not, that that active personal righte∣ousness should be imputed to us, though God in his absolute power might have done so, yet his wisdom did not think good to do it, neither do we read that he doth it: the principal thing to be noted is, that this is the principal, if not the only place, that speaks of imputation of righteousness, and this imputati∣on is remission of sins by the sentence of the supream Judge.

11. Take notice, that he doth in these words exclude the obedience of Christ to the moral Law of nature, from being the matter of a sinners justification: neither doth he make his passive obedience to be the matter, but the meritori∣ous cause only of a sinners justification: for he doth thus conclude; remissi∣on, and▪ justification, and eternal life is ascribed to the sacrifice of Christs death, as the meritorious cause thereof, especially in Ebr. 9. and in many other places▪

12. I have also shewed elsewhere, that Mr. Rutherford denies the said mat∣ter, and ascribes all to the death of Christ: and saith he on the Covenant, pag. 225. If we keep the Law, we are not obliged to suffer; for the Law doth not oblige man both to perfect doing and to perfect suffering copulatively: (as Mr. Nor••on holds) and saith he, in pag. 157. the righteousness, in the which is Da∣vids blessedness, (before Christ) and Abrahams before the Law, and ours under the Gospel, is, in forgiving of iniquity, covering sin, and not imputing sin, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. But in all the Scriptures our sins are never said to be pardoned, and not imputed to us by our own evangelike doing: For we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3. 24. and are washed from our sins in his blood, Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Matth. 26. 28. Revel. 1. 5. and not by our evangelike doing. And saith he a little be∣fore, if any say by abusing that place, in Revel. 22. 14. we obtain this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and right to the Tree of life, by keeping the Commandments evangelically, he must say that we may first keep the Commandments evangelically, before we have right to life to Christ, and so (consequently) before we believe.

13. Mr. John Forbes on justification, concludes his 22. Chapter thus: It is not only a vain opinion, but it is also impossible, that any flesh can be justified by the works of the Law: for no Covenant, whereof Christ is not the Medi∣ator, and which he hath never confirmed by his death, can ever possibly serve to our justification: but of the Covenant of nature made with Adam, and of the Covenant of works made with the Jews at mount Sinai, Christ was not the Mediator of them, he hath not shed his blood to confirm any of those two Co∣venants, and therefore no flesh shall be justified, or have any access to God by ••em. This is an invincible argument against Mr. Norton, and in pag. 103. Mr.

Forbes doth heap up many arguments, to confute such as make Christs obedi∣ence to the moral Law of nature, to be the matter of a sinners righteousness.

14. I will now for further light recite the judgement of two learned and eminent Bishops, touching the matter of a sinners justification.

1. Doctor All••, sometimes B. B. of Exeter, doth distinguish a sinners ju∣stification, * 1.37 from the matter of moral righteousness, properly so called; and therefore he doth first make a common place of moral righteousness by it self: and 2. Then he makes another common place of justification, in another clear distinct and different sort from the former.

1. Righteousness (saith he, in fol. 35.) is nothing else but a general vertue and an universal perfection, having in it no kind of iniquity or sin: it is (saith he) an absolute goodness, a perfect integrity and soundness, or a full observance of Gods Laws. But

2. Saith he, in fol. 193. To justifie, or to be justified, is verbum forense, in Scripture, and it properly signifies to be judged and assoyled, (i.e. acquitted) as if I should say, the people of Rome have justified Scipio, being accused of the Tribunes; that is to say, they have assoyled, (or acquitted him) or pro∣nounced him to be a just man: and so in Scripture it is said, The righteous shall be justified in judgement, and the wicked shall be condemned, Deut. 25. 1. and so in Matth. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified▪ that is, thou shalt be freed and delivered.

3. Saith he, to be justified by faith in Christ, is to obtain remission, and so to be accounted righteous; that is, accepted to God, not by our own powers, but by the free grace of our Mediator.

4. Saith he, justification properly is no other thing then a remission, re∣conciliation, or acceptation of a person to eternal life; that is, (saith he) justification signifies remission of sins, and (thereby) a sure hope of eternal life, given freely by the only mercy of God▪

5. Saith he, Paul calleth those things Justifications, (in Ebr. 9. 10.) Which declare justification after a sort, as are the sacrifices and purifications of the Law: these rites and ceremonies are called, Justification••, not because they do justifie by themselves, but because they do sacramentally represent the manner of justification by Christ.

6. In par. 2. p. 93. he saith, the order of our justification lies thus:

1. It is God which doth justifie, by imparting unto us his mercy and promi∣ses; (namely, of forgiveness to repenting and believing sinners, as he did ex∣press it before.

2. It is Christ that hath deserved this mercy of God, and promise of salva∣tion, by suffering those pains for us, which we our selves should have suffered.

3. Then faith cometh as an Organ or Instrument, by the which we perceive and receive Christ, and with him the mercy and promises of God (his forgive∣ness) by the which we are justified.

And saith he a little before, when we say that we are justified by faith, it is no more to say, but that justification is obtained and had by Christ, and the promises of God which are received and apprehended by faith.

In these three points he speaks of the order of justification, just as Tindal doth, whose words I have cited in my former printed Reply; and in all this he

hath not a word of Mr. Nortons matter of justification; and yet he saith in his Table, justification is throughly discussed; namely, in the words which I have now cited.

15. The other eminent Bishop is Doctor Bilson, who saith in his Sermons of Redemption, pag. 45. By Christs obedience I do not mean the holiness of his life, or his performance of the Law, but the obedience of the person unto death, even the death of the cross, which was voluntarily offered by him, and not necessarily imposed on him, above and besides the Law, and no way re∣quired in the Law. In these words he denies that matter of a sinners justifica∣tion, which Mr. Norton contends ••or, and also he denies the obedience of Christ in his death, to be above and besides the Law, and therefore not to be any legal obedience: quite opposite to Mr. Nortons assertion.

2. Saith he, in pag. 104. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5. 19. This obedi∣ence of Christ (saith he) is his obedience unto death, even to the death of the cross, Phil. 2. 8. and the righteousness of the faithful (saith he) is the forgive∣ness of their sins, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3. 24, 25.

Mark this I pray, that he calls the righteousness of the faithful the forgive∣ness of their sins.

3. Saith he in his Survey, pag. 267. God doth impute righteousness to us that be sinners, by pardoning our offences, and accepting us for Christ his sake, when of our selves we are most unworthy.

4. Saith he ibidem, the punishment of our sins Christ did willingly bear in his body; the guilt of our sins he did not, and that made his offering the more righteous (and meritorious) as being without desert of guilt.

5. Saith he, in pag. 272. God made Christ sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is a sacrifice for sin, by the which our sins are pardoned and purged, that so we might be made the righteousness of God in him, by his remitting all our sins, and restoring us into Gods favour. Mark I pray how he doth expound both the parts of 2 Cor. 5. 21. just as I have done in my former printed Reply, pag. 207, &c. for he makes Christs sacrifice for sin to be the procuring cause of Gods atonement, by the which our sins are pardoned and purged, that so we might be made the righte∣ousness of God in him.

6. Saith he a few lines after; Even in this life where we are continual sin∣ners, we have no righteousness, but what is joyned with the real remission of our sins pardoned for Christ his sake.

These eminent Divines, and divers others which I have cited in the next Section, do plainly deny the obedience of Christ in his life, to be the matter of a sinners justification; and they do confirm the same way and order of justification, that I have all along held forth, though they are censured for heresie by Mr. Norton through my sides; but if any heresie be, it belongs to the censurer: for oftentimes it falls out, that such as are most in errour, do most cry out against such as hold the contrary truth.

7. Neither doth Doctor Bilson make the obedience of Christ in his death

to be the matter, but the meritor••ous cause only of a sinners justification; and so do divers other em••nent Divines, which I have cited in Chap. 4. at the be∣g••nning.

15. I have cited five eminent Divines in my former printed Reply, in pag. 248. ••hat make no other matter to belong to a sinners justification, but belie∣vers themselves; namely, the subject matter only, as I did at first express it in my Di••logu••, in p. 133. and now I will adde unto them some other Divines.

16. Mr. Gataker saith thus in his Dispute with Gomarus, pag. 5. The satis∣fact o•• of Christ in those doings and sufferings (whereunto he was not bound by the common Law of nature) is the matter of the justice for which we are justi∣fied: (i.e. it is the meritorious matter for the which we are justified) But of the just••fication ••hich is the action of God, it can scarce be prope••ly called the matter. And saith he in Thesis 7. how can any one pay that for another which himself owes, &c.

17. Mr. Woodbridge a little before cited, doth utterly reject that kind of matter, (which Mr. Norton doth so zealously contend for) namely, the obe∣dience of Christ in doing the command (and suffering the curse) of the Co∣venant made with Adam: and in his Method, in pag. 65. and elsewhere he doth call the matter of a sinners justification, the meritorious cause, just as Mr. Ga••aker above cited doth.

18. Mr. Lawson saith in his Body of Divinity, pag. 296. the subject of this act, and the material immediate cause of this act (of justification) is man, con∣sidered as a sinner, and as a believer.

19. Seeing justification is but a transient act of God, it cannot have any matter properly so called, and therefore Mr. Nortons matter can be no better then a no•• ens, because the doing of the Covenant made with Adam is now a no•• ens, seeing it hath been utterly extinguished, ever since Adam brake it by eating the forbidden fruit.

20. Mr. Norton doth argue for his matter of a sinners justification, more like a natural Philosopher, (that never read the Bible) then a sound Divine, because he thinks that God cannot effect the formal cause of a sinners justi∣fication, * 1.38 without some matter that is properly so called: and just after this manner did the Maniches and the Arians reason for the defence of their er∣rours: 1. The Maniches said, that God could not make the World without matter, because no man can make any thing otherwise: but Chrysostome doth thus answer in his Sermon on Ephes. 6. He that seeketh the Doctrine of truth, should not fall down upon the Earth; that is to say, he should not fall down to natural reasoning from earthly similitudes: and there he gives the said in∣stance of the Maniches. 2. The like kind of natural reason did Arius give, why Gods begetting could not be without passion; namely, because it is so among men. These and such like Hereticks did interpret the Scriptures ac∣cording to the judgement of mans natural reason. 3. Other Divines say, that Arguments taken a simili in such like mysterious cases as these, doth often prove

very dangerous; and that they have their eyes drowned in flesh, that trans∣fer unto God the same order of causes that are incident to sinful man in the course of their working: and of this I have warned the Reader in my for∣mer printed Reply, in pag. 55, 82, 96. and in pag. 102. I have cited Mr. T••ahe∣••o••s Caution, that we do not make God subject to the order and row of cau∣ses, that man is subject to. 4. P. Martyr saith, that men may use similies of their own devising, so as they beware of two things; 1. That they devise no∣thing that is repugnant to sound Doctrine: 2. That they obtrude not those devices as the natural and proper sence of the Scriptures. It is a dangerous thing to adde our own blind and gross expositions after the judgement and ex∣ample of worldly reason unto the word of God, as Mr. Norton doth often in the matter of a sinners justification, and in the point of Christs suretiship, to do the command of the first Covenant, and to suffer the curse of it. ••. Tin∣dal in his Prologue to the five Books of Moses doth at large shew the good use, and the dangerous use of allegories or similitudes, in pag. 14. and he concludes thus, in pag. 15. In allegories, saith he, there is both honey and gall; that is to say, both good and evil: For, saith he, there is not a more handsome or apt thing to beguile withal, then an allegory, nor a more subtil and pestilent thing in the World to perswade a false matter, then an allegory: and contrariwise saith he, there is not a better vehementer or mightier thing to make a man understand withal, then an allegory, &c.

21. The Ebrew Doctors say, the excellent knowledge (or reason) that is found in the soul of man, is the form of man, and that it is not compound∣ed of Elements: and say they, when the matter of mans body, which is com∣pounded of Elements, is separated from the soul by death; yet then this es∣sential form is not destroyed, but continues to be a form without matter, un∣til the resurrection of the body. Their words are thus cited by Ains. in Gen. 2. 7. The form of the soul (of man) is not compounded of the Elements, but tis of the Lord from Heaven; therefore when the material body, which is com∣pounded of the Elements is separated, and the breath perisheth, because it is not found but with the body, and is needful for the body in all the actions thereof. This essential form is not destroyed, &c. but continueth for ever, even for ever and ever; and so doth the form of a sinners justification conti∣nue for ever, yea, for ever and ever, though it have no matter that is properly so called.

22. I have formerly shewed, that P. Martyr doth make no other matter in a sinners justification, but the subject matter of believing sinners only: and I believe that a judicious and unbyased Reader will soon see, that it is from the said earthly kind of reasoning that Mr. Norton doth so often scoffe at my Dialogue, because I make the formal cause of justification to lie only in Gods atonement, (or in his gracious forgiveness) procured by the merit of Christs obedience in his death and sacrifice, without his matter of moral obedience to the nullified Covenant of nature.

23. But in so doing, I hope he doth but at unawares scoffe at the wisdom of God, in giving such an external typical pattern, by the justification of the bodies of the national Church from their ceremonial sins, by Levitical wash∣ings,

and by the blood of Bulls and Goats, &c. From this typical pattern God would have all to learn, (as from a School-master) that a sinners justification from his moral sins doth consist only in negative holiness and righteousness: and the Apostle doth teach us to argue the case to this sence; for in Ebr. 9. 13, 14. he tells us, That the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, doth sanctifie (or make sinners holy ceremonially) to the purifying of the flesh; (namely, to the making of the body negatively righte∣ous from ceremonial sins) and from thence he makes this heavenly inference, in vers. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who offered himself through the eternal Spirit without spo•• to God, purge your conscience (i.e. purifie, or justifie your conscience) from dead work••; (that is to say, from such works as proceed from our Spiritual death in sin) for ever since God inflicted that pu∣nishment of a Spiritual death in sin upon Adam, and upon all his natural po∣sterity, for his transgression of the Covenant of nature by eating of the for∣bidden fruit, in Gen. 2. 17. we can do nothing else but the dead works of our Spiritual death in sin, which are called by the Apostle, Dead works: but in case Mr. Norton will not learn this blessed truth from this teaching School-master, (or typical pattern) let him go on to scoffe, seeing he delights in it; for he doth often repeat his deriding tearm of a non en••, as in pag. 212, 217, 225, 237, &c.

Conclusion.

Tis most evident by what I have noted touching the utter nulling of the Covenant made with Adam, that Mr. Norton had no just ground to reproach my formal cause as a non ens, for the want of that matter of the Covenant of nature, (by eating of the Tree of life) which is not now in being: but the unbyased Reader may see on the contrary side, that I have a true ground to retort his tearm of a non ens upon his own head, because he affirmeth in his first foundation proposition, and elsewhere, that Christ our surety did ful∣fil the Covenant that was made with Adam, by doing that command in a way of works, and by suffering the curse of that nullified Covenant: and thence it followes, that his matter of a sinners justification is nothing else but a non ens.

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 * 1.39 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 * 1.40 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 * 1.41 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 * 1.42 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 * 1.43 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 * 1.44 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 * 1.45 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 * 1.46 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 * 1.47 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 * 1.48 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, * 1.49 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 * 1.50 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 * 1.51 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 * 1.52 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.

Conclusion.

1. It is no better then a meer fiction, to make the Law at mount Sinai, to be the second edition of the Law of the Covenant of works made with Adam, seeing that Covenant is no where called the Law of works in all the Bible.

2. It is another fiction, to affirm that the Covenant of nature did pro∣mise an eternal life in Heaven, seeing none but bodies spiritualized must come thither, 1 Cor. 15. 44, &c.

3. It is another fiction, to make the Covenant of nature to be still in being for the matter of a sinners justification, seeing that Covenant was utterly extinguished, as soon as Adam had but tasted the forbidden fruit, and received the threatned punishment of a double Spiritual death.

4. It is another fiction, to make Christ to be our surety to fulfil that nullified Covenant, for the justification of believing sinners, seeing that Law required no other work, but to eat of the Tree of the twofold life: and 2. By suffering for them the essential punishment of that double Spi∣ritual death, for the redemption and justification of believing sinners. These and many such like fictions held forth by Mr. Norton, are no better then the building of a strong conceited fabrick in the air, that falls to the ground of it self.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 212.

Being sinless acquits from obnoxiousness unto Hell, but being just gives a right to Heaven.

There is (saith he) an observable difference between being unjust, not unjust, not just just: the sinner not yet a believer is unjust, the unrea∣sonable creature is not unjust, Adam in his innocency was more then not unjust, yet was not just: the believer is just.

[Reply 22] There is a whole heap of errors couched together in these distinctions, and the chief ground of all these errors is, because he doth confound the Covenant of nature with the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue; and out of that confusion he hath hatched his first corrupt foundation propo∣sition, in pag. 2. namely, that Christ was the surety of the elect in the Co∣venant of nature made with Adam, 1. To do the command in a way of works, (which was no other work, but to eat of the Tree of life once for all) and 2. To suffer the essential punishment of that cursed Spiritual death that was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. in a way of obedient satisfaction to the justice of that Covenant: and from this foundation error he hath hatched many heterodox distinctions, 1. In the point of Christs satisfa∣ction; and 2. In the point of a sinners justification, to the utter confound∣ing of the truth. But I hope I have taken a right course to clear the truth, by making a right distinction between the said two Covenants, and by proving also that the Covenant of nature made with Adam was utterly extinguished, as soon as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit: and from thence it followes, 1. That the great point of Christs satisfaction, and 2. That the great point of a sinners justification have no dependance at all upon that nullified Covenant of nature.

But I will now reply to the particulars.

1. Our being made sinless by Gods gracious forgiveness, doth acquit * 1.53 us not only from obnoxiousness to Hell, but it doth also make a sinner just in the sight of God, with that negative justice only, which God in the Covenant of grace and reconciliation hath ordained to justifie them, and to bring them into the favour of Gods adopted children, and so con∣sequently to give them a right to Heaven: but the concreated moral righteousness, wherein Adam was created, had no promise of Heaven made over to it, because the state of man at first was only natural, and it was before the Covenant of grace was ordained to bring fallen Adam to Heaven.

2. Mr. Calvin saith, in Instit. b. 3. c. 11. Sect. 22. that Zachary the father of John Baptist singeth thus: The knowledge of salvation consisteth in the forgiveness of sins, &c. and thence it followes, that it doth not con∣sist in perfect moral righteousness.

3. Mr. Woodbridge doth prove from John 6. 53, 54. that remission of * 1.54 sins is that life, which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the World.

4. Mr. Bradshaw on Justification, c. 13. Sect. 26, 27, 28. saith, no sin∣ner can be freed from all sin in manner aforesaid, (that is to say, by Christs satisfaction in his death) but he must therein of necessity be esteemed As (a) perfectly righteous. The (b) least defect of righteousness being a de∣gree of sin.

(a) Rom. 4, 5, 6, 8. and 5. 19. Phil. 3. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 21. (b) 1 John 5.

17. and 1 John 3. 4. (But take notice, that this kind of righteousness is supernatural, and not natural righteousness) It is therefore (saith he) all one To be free from all sin, and to be perfectly righteous: they therefore that affirm that by Christs sufferings we are freed from all sins, and that by his active obedience we are made righteous, (as though these were two divers effects of those two divers acts) seem to have no warrant from Scri∣pture, and are regugnant to reason, it being not possible to devise a me∣dium between him that is no sinner, and a righteous person, no more then between the air free from all degrees of darkness, and fully light, or a man in no measure blind, and perfectly seeing.

And saith he a little after, he that is free from all sin, is thereby freed from all degrees of eternal death; and whatsoever (saith he) doth ef∣fectually and meritoriously free a man from all degrees of death, doth thereby also intitle him to everlasting life. Christs sufferings therefore, and his righteousness must either joyntly do both, or one of them must be utterly excluded from both; for that which effecteth the one, effecteth the other also of necessity.

And saith he, though it be said that Christ dyed for our sins, and rose * 1.55 again for our justification, yet it doth not thence follow, that by his death and sufferings only our sins are expiated; and that by his fulfil∣ling the Law we are moreover made righteous, and thereby intitled to everlasting life: for by his resurrection in that place we cannot under∣stand his fulfilling of the Law, it being no part thereof: and his dying for sin was for our justification also, so that the meaning of the Apostle seemeth to be this only, that Christ dyed and rose again to this end, that thereby we might be justified; implying also, that though Christ dyed for our sins, yet if he had not risen again we should not have been ju∣stified.

This little Book of Mr. Bradshaws is to be highly prized: For

(1. It hath been often Printed both in English and also in Latin.

2. I conceive that a judicious Reader will find more solid things, touch∣ing a sinners justification in it, then in many great Volumes.

3. Mr. Gataker doth give a large testimony, both of the Book, and al∣so of the Author, in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication, from pag. 71. to pag. 80. and he doth also record a large testimony that was given to it, by that great Lawyer Sir Edward Cook, then Lord chief Justice; and the like testimony was given to it by Lodowick Capellus, one of the Divi∣nity Professors of the University of Salmure in France, and also by some of both the Universities of England.)

5. Mr. Gataker doth answer the like assertion to Mr. Nortons, in his Animadversions on the sixteenth Thesis of Gomarus, whose assertion is this, To him that is perfectly just is required not only purgation from the guilt of sin, but also from all the stain of it; as it is understood by Ebr. 10. 9, 10. because the purged of whom it is spoken do yet retain the remain∣ing stains of original sin.

Mr. Gataker doth thus answer in pag. 25. How is he not perfectly just? who plainly in that same place (of Ebr. 10. 9, 10.) is of due right account∣ed as if he had never sinned▪

2. (Saith he) purgation from stains, seeing it appertains to sanctifi∣cation properly so called, (here being ill confounded with the business of justification) is not the work of justification, or indeed of it self a necessary consequent.

3. (Saith he) those stains after Christs satisfaction, imputed by God, and apprehended by faith, are no more imputed unto guilt, truly no more then if they had not been in them at all. And (saith he at N^o 5,) how shall not that man obtain right unto eternal life, who is fully purged from sin? neither can that man but live eternally, who can never die: this exception therefore (saith he) is most vain, it being such as abounds with almost as many faults as words.

6. Mr. Baxter doth thus answer to Mr. Nortons said assertion, in his Aphor. pag. 50. at N^o 11. It maketh the like vain distinction (saith he) between delivering from death, and giving title to life, or freeing us from the penalty, and giving us the reward: for when all sin of omission and commission is absent, there is no unrighteousness; so when all pe∣nalty is taken away, both that of pain, and that of los••, the party is re∣stored to his former h••ppiness. Indeed there is a greater superadded de∣gree of life and glory procured by Christ, more then we lost in Adam; but as that life is not opposed to the death or penalty of the first Covenant, but to that of the second; so it is the effect of Christs passive as well as of his active righteousness.

7. Mr. John Goodwin doth dispute against Mr. Nortons said assertion, in a large Chapter, in Imputatio fides, par. 2. p. 3, &c. He sheweth that there is no med••um between a perfect absolution, and a compleat righte∣ousness; his dispute is large and worthy of a serious perusal.

8. Mr. Lawson (before cited) makes Gods forgiveness to give a sinner a right to Heaven: and if it were needful I could cite sundry eminent writers, that do make Gods forgiveness for the sake of Christs obedience in his death and sacrifice, to be a believers full and perfect justification to the attaining of an eternal life in Heaven.

But saith Mr. Nor••on in the place aforesaid.

Adam in his innocency was more then not unjust, yet was not just; the believer is just.

[Reply 23] I grant that Adam in his innocency was not just, with that kind of ju∣stice that a believer is: for I have shewed before at Reply 2. and 3. that the justice which believers have by Christ, is not a natural, but a su∣pernatural justice; and that that kind of supernatural justice was not compatible to Adams perfect natural estate. Mr. Norton doth indeed af∣firm in that place, that Adam by his creation had a principle in nature to believe in Christ his head and Redeemer, in case God should have called for it; but I have shewed there, that he had not such a principle by

nature: and his supposition, in case God should call for it, seeing it is but a bare surmise of a thing that cannot be, it is no better then a meer fa∣lacy in arguing.

2. Though Adams ability to keep the Law was given him of God, yet it doth not thence follow, that he had an ability to believe in Christ: for his ability to keep the Law, saith Mr. Woodbridge in his Method, pag. 342. was given him of God, but not of grace, but Ut naturae debita, (as we maintain against the Papists) as due to his nature, out of that common goodness which furnished every creature in its kind, with those princi∣ples and abilities which were necessary to them, for the attaining of the respective ends unto which they were created.

2. The eight Divines immediately cited, and sundry others do affirm, that Adam was made and remained perfectly just, as long as he enjoy∣ed his concreated moral perfections: and of this I shall speak more from Mr. Gataker in my next Reply.

3. Mr. Burges saith truly on Justific. pag. 8. that there can be no ju∣stification properly, but where there is an accusation or a charge; and so saith Mr. Ains. in Psal. 1. 5. to make just, or to justifie (saith he) is to acquit or to absolve in judgement, Psal. 82. 3. Matth. 12. 41. and so said Doctor Alle before cited in Sect. 5. Reply 15.

4. Mr. Bradshaw doth also affirm, in Chap. 2. N^o 4. that if Adam had not sinned, and if there had been no Devils to charge him with sin, or any ground or color to suspect him of sin, he might in this case have been declared just and innocent: but yet (saith he) he could not then properly be said to be justified. Mark his distinction between being just naturally, (as Adam was in his innocency) and justified supernaturally, as sinners are that believe in Christ. His distinction is of special impor∣tance, and it agrees with Doctor Alle before cited.

5. Mr. Woodbridge (and generally all) saith, that justification doth make a change in a persons state from unjust to just: and from thence it followes, that as long as Adam stood without any change in his innocent state of nature, he could not be said to be properly justified.

But yet notwithstanding I do also grant, that in case he had resisted the Devils temptation, and had thereupon refused to eat of the forbid∣den fruit, he should have been justified in that particular case, as no trans∣gresser of the Covenant of nature; yet he should not by that refusal have been confirmed in his moral perfections, until he had first eaten of the Tree of the twofold life; for nothing else was ordained to benefit his po∣sterity, but his doing of that Covenant-act of obedience: and had he but done that act of obedience, then his posterity should not have stood in need of any personal justification, as all believing sinners now do un∣der the Covenant of grace.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 244.

As the matter of Adams justification in innocency had not consisted of one act of obedience, but of a whole course of obedience, the finish∣ing

of which was requisite to have made him just; so it is with the obedi∣ence of Christ.

[Reply 24] He might as well have said, that the matter of Adams condemnation to a double Spiritual death, did not consist in one act of disobedience, (by his once eating of the forbidden fruit) as say, that the matter of his confirmation (for he needed no justification, as long as he stood unchanged * 1.56 in his created perfections) did not consist in one act of obedience, by his once eating of the Tree of the twofold life.

2. He saith, that the matter of Adams justification stood in a whole course of obedience, the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just. Behold (I pray) the fallacy of his arguing; for he doth not tell the punctual time when his obedience (which he calls the matter of his justification) should be finished, whether at the end of ten thousand, or at the end of a hundred thousand years, for the perfecting of his ju∣stification: but on the contrary, in case Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of the twofold life in the first place, he should have been so con∣firmed in his concreated moral perfections, that he should never have dy∣ed, but have lived for ever in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise, and all his children, by the vertue of Gods supream positive Covenant should have been born in his natural perfections, and so consequently they should never have been properly justified, (because they should ne∣ver have finished their course of moral obedience) unless God had set a limited time when the course of their obedience should have been finished, which had been to make his image in Adam changeable before he fell.

Gomarus agrees with Mr. Nortons said assertion.

For thus he saith, in Thesis 17. Moreover, neither doth the absence of all sin suffer that any one should (thereby) be endued with perfect justice, who hath right to life, but thereto is also required the perfect obedience of the Law; that is, that all the Commandments be altogether, and at all times kept; by which reason Adam before the fall, albeit he were not un∣just and a sinner, yet was he not perfectly just with such a justice as was required to the right of life, because the duration of his begun justice suc∣ceeded not unto the end.

Mr. Gataker doth thus answer: Scarce a more vain thought then the * 1.57 other (in Thes. 16.) could even be devised: For.

1. As if the absence of sin, and the keeping of the Law, which are utterly indivisive, were two distinct things severed from each other, or two members of justice, unto the which (justice) it should stand as whole, whereas in very deed these two are coincident: for all kind of absence of sin must necessarily include in it self the keeping of the Law; and the ab∣solute keeping of the Law must necessarily include in it self the absence of all sin.

2. Saith he, whose denies that Adam was perfectly just, with such a justice as was required unto the right of life, because the duration of his justice succeeded not unto the end, the same must deny Christ to have been

perfectly just immediately from his birth, or from his begun publick mini∣stry, because the duration of his justice had not yet succeeded unto the end, or that Adam also now placed in Heaven is perfectly just, because the duration of his justice is not yet also expired. Adam was from the very beginning perfectly just, because he was made of God in perfect ju∣stice, he also remained perfectly just, because endowed with perfect ju∣stice, so long as he stood in that estate wherein he was made: and so long as he stood in that estate, he had both right unto life, and rejoyced even in the possession of the same. His fall cut off the right unto life, not by condemning his former justice of imperfection, which whilest he re∣tained, he had both right unto life, and the fruit of that right: but nei∣ther had he, by cutting off the continuation of it, (which being continu∣ed had not been more perfect, but more prolonged) gotten a new right unto life, but had continued that before conferred.

3. Saith he, the opposition and comparison is not made unto the same thing; to wit, the temporary absence of sin is compared with perpetual justice which is perfect, when as even the perpetual absence of sin ought to have been compared with justice alike continued: for who can bear one thus arguing? expurgation of sin brings not in justice, because ab∣sence of sin for a time brings not in perpetuall justice. Yea the expur∣gation of all sin in general doth not bring in perfect justice, (for so ought it to be said, unless we would deny some sin to be purged away by the blood of Christ, against the Apostle, 1 John 1. 7.) because doubtless the temporary absence of sin doth not necessarily bring in perfect ju∣stice.

4. Saith he, from the Authors very grounds here proposed (it followes that) Adam, if he had never sinned, had appeared perfectly just, where∣as nothing hindred whereby he should appear less such, but that he some∣times sinned: and therefore all the faithful, seeing all their faults which they have committed from birth until death, are purged away by the blood of Christ, what hinders why in the sight of God they be ere a whit less holden for perfectly just.

And then he concludes thus,

Those things are not onely Sophisms, but meer prodigious Phantasms.

5. Touching the duration of time wherein Adam is said to obey for the justification of his posterity.

Mr. Gataker doth thus Answer, to his seventh Thesis, That which is said of Adam, is most false and foolish; for did Adam ever so keep the Law in∣stead of his posterity, as that they, though they had never kept it, should yet have lived, for the merit of their fathers keeping it; imputed unto them? whence came that Divinity to us? he that pleads Gods justifica∣tion, ought to shew where that may be found; the Scripture surely holds not forth any thing of that kind; moreover he ought to have given, a de∣termin•••• space of that time, wherein he ought to stand and obey for others. But (saith he) these are phantasms of infernal dreams.

I have thus far cited Mr. Gatakers Answers.

But I do not in all things assent to him.

1. Because I have shewed that the Covenant of nature was not made with Adam, on condition of his perfect moral obedience, but on condition of h••s transient act of positive obedience in eating first of the tree of the two-fold life.

2. Because that promise of life, was not a promise of a life of glory in heaven, but onely of a perfect natural life in the sweet contents of an earthly paradise.

3. Because his perfect moral obedience cannot properly be called his just••fication, there is an exceeding wide difference between Adams natural righteousness, and the justification of believing sinners, as I have shewed, in R••ply, 17. and shall do more at large in my several Chapters touch∣ing forgiveness of sin; I con••lude therefore, that in case Adam had but first eaten of the tree of the twofold life; he and his posterity had been confirmed thereby in their concreated natural perfections, to all eternity, and that natural perfection should have been their eternal righteousness, but not their eternal justification, because there can be no justification properly, but where there is an accusation of sin going before; as I shew∣ed, in Reply 23.

But saith Mr. Norton, in pag. 254.

Upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience, all the acts of his obedience, even to the finishing of perfect righteousness, had been im∣puted to his seed according to the nature of the Covenant of works, unto their attaining of justification by the Law.

[Reply 25] 1. The Reader may please to take notice that he doth in this and in his former assertion affirm, That the very acts of Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature should have been imputed to all his seed for their justification.

2. The Reader may also please to take notice, that he doth contradict this way of justification; for he doth affirm, in pag. 245. That it is not the formal doing of the command, but the meritorious efficacy of Christs obedience, that is imputed to believers for their justification.

3. This way of justification by the meritorious efficacy of Christs obe∣dience, I did affirm in my Dialogue, in pag. 140. to be the only way: But Mr. Norton (being blinded with error and prejudice) doth fall into an extream passion against it, and calls it heresie, because I do not agree with him, to make Christ our surety to the first Covenant made with Adam, to do the command in a way of works, &c.

4. The Reader may also take notice, that in his denial of the acts of Christs moral obedience, to be imputed to the justification of believing sinners, in pag. 245. he doth contradict a former sort of Divines, that frequently have asserted the very acts of Christs moral obedience, to be imputed to believers, for their justification, against whom M••. Wotton, Mr. Goodwin, and others have largely disputed in several printed books.

5. Take notice that in his two last assertions he doth affirm. 1. That Adams justification did not consist in one act of obedience, but in a whole course of obedience. 2. That all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect righteousness had been imputed to his seed for their justification; and from thence it doth necessarily follow, that in case A∣dam had continued in his moral obedience a hundred thousand years, yet he might have fail••d at last; and then neither himself nor his poste∣r••ty should have been justified by the works of the Law; and 3. It doth from thence also follow that that part of his children, which he begate in that hundred thousand years space, should have been begotten in his own created likeness, after the image of God; and the rest that were begotten after that time should have been begotten after the image of Sa∣than.

I conclude therefore that his said assertions, are no better then infernal dreams.

6. Mr. Norton doth often cite Dr. Willet, as if he were wholly of his judgement in the point of Christs legal obedience; for Mr. Nor••o•• doth make all Christs obedience to be legal; both in his incarnation and death; But Dr. Willet doth differ much from him, for that he saith, in Dan. 9. 24. pag. 291. The justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us, because by it he overcame death, and subdued the devil, none of all which Adams righteousness could do; and saith he a few lines before, * 1.58 his descention, conception, incarnation and miracles, are not imputed to us, because they were no part of fulfilling the Law, that is to say, they were not performed in obedience to any part of the moral Law of nature, quite con∣trary to Mr. Norton, for he makes all Christs obedience to be done in a perfect conformity to the moral Law of nature.

2. From the said assertion of Dr. Willets, it follows that the moral righteousness of Christ as well as of Adam, was not sufficient to conquer Sathan, and to break his head-plot, without the addition of his positive obedience, for in case Adam had performed positive obedience by eating first of the tree of the twofold life, he had conquered Sathans temptation, so Christ by his performance of positive obedience to the peculiar Law of Mediatorship in his combate of sufferings; conquered Satans head-plot for mans Redemption, for these positive Laws were derived from the de∣crees of Gods counsel (which he first declared, in Gen. 3. 15.) and not from the revealed moral Law of nature.

3. Thence also it follows that seeing Adams moral righteousness was not suf∣ficient to secure him from being beguiled in his obedience to Gods positive law & covenant, that Christs moral obedience was not in like sort sufficient to conquer the Devils head-plot unless his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant for mans Redemption were added thereunto; and 4. God did in special manner qualifie the humane nature of Christ, for the exe∣cution of his office of Mediatorship, with more grace then he did give to Adam; for first his humane nature was not onely conceived by the holy

Ghost. But 2. when he entred into his publike office of Mediatorship at his baptism, God added another qualification to him, by anointing him with the fulness of the holy Ghost, even with the fulness of all superna∣tural graces which were sutable, for the ineffable performance of his said positive obedience, both in his combate of sufferings, and in his death and sacrifice for mans Redemption; But I have spoken more at large of his anointing, on the word anoint, in Dan. 9. 24. to which I refer the Reader.

Conclusion,

1. From the premises it follows, that the Law of the Covenant of na∣ture was no moral Law, it was no other, but a transient positive Law onely, about the act of once eating.

2. Seeing the Covenant of nature was totally extinguished in the first moment that Adam tasted of the forbidden fruit; it is a meer fiction to af∣firm that Christ was the surety of the elect to fulfil that extinguished Co∣venant, by doing the Command in a way of works, &c. and therefore Mr. Norton labors in vain to build the great point of Christs satisfaction, and the great point of a sinners justification on this nullified Cove∣nant.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Matth. 22. 40.
• * 1.2

  The tearm mo∣ral Law is of∣ten ill applyed by Mr. Norton to the ten Com∣mandments; ••. In relation to the moral Law of nature, and 2. To the Covenant of nature, seeing the ten Com∣mandments re∣late only to the Covenant of grace.
• * 1.3

  Adam in his innocency ••ould not believe in Christ, because justifying faith was inconsistent with that estate
• * 1.4

  The cause of the fall of the one part of the Angels was for their refusing to at∣tend on such earthly crea∣tures as Adam and Eve were▪ and the cause of co••firming the other part was for their obedi∣ence in attend∣ing on Adam and Eve.
• * 1.5

  The elect Angels did according to Gods positive Law and Cove∣nant attend up∣on Adam and Eve in paradise; but they did not attend on them from any natu∣ral instinct, for there was no natural likeness between them, but in obedience to Gods positive Command only.
• * 1.6

  In his Method. p. 197. & 132. & 341.
• * 1.7

  1. The moral Law of nature. 2. The transient Law of the Co∣venant of na∣ture. 3. The Law of the Covenant of grace must be distinguished, as 3. distinct sorts of Laws, and not co••sounded together under the same word Law, at mount Sinai, as Mr. Norton doth, and see more, in Chap. 4. Sect. 3. and here at Reply 8.
• * 1.8

  That ki••d of Law that is cal∣led posi••ive may thus be descri∣bed, i•• is not an inbred, imprint∣ed, or infused Law into the heart of man, as the moral Law of nature was into Adams heart; neither is it infused in∣to the heart of man by the Law of grace; but it is imposed only, by the external command of the Supreme Law∣giver; and so it hath t••e name positive, for the external impo∣sition or const∣tution of the Lawgiver; and not from the in∣ternal Law of nature. God made ma∣ny positive Laws and Co∣vena••ts for the tryal of obedi∣ence by▪ some particular bo∣dily acts o••ly.
• * 1.9

  God made ma∣ny positive Co∣ve••ants for the bodily good of some particular persons, upon condition of their perform∣ing the bodily act, either of seeing, hearing, eating, &c.
• * 1.10

  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.
• * 1.11

  Mr. Rutherford denies the De∣calogue to be∣long to the Law of works given to Adam. See him on the Covenant, pag. 60, &c. The Law at mount Sinai was given for no other Cove∣nant; But of grace for mans salvation in heaven, and therefore it doth not comprehend the Law of the Covenant of nature that was made with Adam.
• * 1.12

  Deut. 29. 1.
• * 1.13

  The Covenant made at Horeb was the same in substance that God made with Abraham, and of this see more, in Chap. 6. Sect. 5. N^o. 8.
• * 1.14

  But M^r. Ains. saith that these words were not onely the ten Commandments, but especially the book where∣in the statutes and judgements were written, in Psal. 25. 10.
• * 1.15

  All the promises and threatnings from Gen. 3. 15 to the end of the Bible do descend from the Cove∣nant of grace, and not from the Covenant of na∣ture made with Adam.
• * 1.16

  Esa. 55. 7.
• * 1.17

  In his Doctrine of Life, p. 313.
• * 1.18

  The typical Laws are a pa••t of the Covena••t of grace ••ha•• was made at mo••••t Sinai.
• * 1.19

  The Covenant made with A∣dam was not given to him as a Law of works in the plural.
• * 1.20

  There is no o∣ther Law of works (i•• the plural) in all the Bible, but the Levitical works which God ordained at mount Sinai. for the typical pattern of the Covenant of grace.
• * 1.21

  Levit. 19. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 14, 15.
• * 1.22

  No•••• that were defiled with ce∣remonial sins might presume to ••ome into Gods holy Tem∣ple, under the penalty of cut∣ting off, until they were made holy again, by being justified from those sins by the works of the Leviti••al Law. God promised to forgive the guilt of cere∣monial sins to all the national Church, if they did but observe the outward works of the Levitical Law, Ex opere ope∣rato.
• * 1.23

  The Jews were called a holy na∣tion, in relation to their typical church-holiness, as well as in relation to the true typified ••o∣liness which be∣lievers only had among them.
• * 1.24

  It was in rela∣tion to the Law of works, that Jesus Christ ordained many lawful things at mount Sinai to be ceremoni∣ally sinful, to the defiling of their bodies, (though not to the defiling of their consci∣ence) that so they might be justified there∣from by the ty∣pical works of the Law.
• * 1.25

  As God did command the national Church to do the outward works of the Levitical Law, as the only condition on their part, for the justification of their bodies from their ceremonial sins, so he hath commanded such as sin mo∣rally to believe in Christ, as the only condition to be performed on their part, for their souls justificati∣on from their moral sins.
• * 1.26

  The work of the Law for their bodily justification from ceremoni∣al sins descri∣bed. The command to wash gar∣ments did al∣ways include a command to wash the body, for the effecting of their bodily justification from certain ce∣remonial sin••.
• * 1.27

  The condition that was requi∣red to be per∣formed by the Jews, for the justification of their bodies from ceremonial sins, was by their doing of the typical workes of the Law, which were also ordained to be for an examplary pattern of the souls justification from moral sins, on condition they did beleeve in Christ the meritorious cause of Gods atonement and forgiveness, for their formal justification.
• * 1.28

  Rom. 8. 3. Act. 13. 39. Ebr. 9. 1, 10.
• * 1.29

  Christ is the spi∣rit of the letter, and also of the types of Moses Law, to all such as have faith in him, as I have also shewed, in my Exposition of Rom. 8. 2.
• * 1.30

  The Ancient Rab. did look into the spiritu∣al sense of the letter of the Law, and also into the spiritual sense of the types, which included the Doctrine of Regeneration, and also of justification from moral sins.
• * 1.31

  It is a great error to make the moral Law of nature, to be the matter of a sin∣ners justifica∣tion.
• * 1.32

  The Covnant at mount Sinai is called two Co∣venants, because the Cove••ant of grace was typi∣fied) by the Co∣venant of works; But in case the Cove∣nant made with Adam, had been still in being for a sinners justification, then the Apostle should have called them (not two but) three Covenants, or else he did much forget himself in his account.
• * 1.33

  Ebr. 7. 11. Ebr. 8. 6. Exod. 24. 12. The Law was ordained to be for a teaching School-master unto Christ, for justification by ••••ith in him.
• * 1.34

  In his Method, pag. 10. 53.
• * 1.35

  In ••is Method, pag. 251. Mr. Wood∣bridge denies that a sinners justification doth proceed from the matter of Adams obe∣dience to the Covenant of nature, and secondly he denies that Covenant to be now in force, point blank a∣gainst Mister Norton.
• * 1.36

  In his Body of Divinity, c. 3. Sect. 8. p. 103.
• * 1.37

  In his Poor mans Library, fol. 35. 193.
• * 1.38

  God can make the formal cause of a sinners ju∣stification, without any matter that is properly so cal∣led, though men cannot by their natural reason form any thing without matter. Arguments ta∣ken a simili, in transferring unto God the same order of causes, that mans natural reason is led by in his order of working, is of dangerous consequence to the hatching of many great errors in Divinity▪
• * 1.39

  Eph. 4. 24.
• * 1.40

  Rom. 3. 27.
• * 1.41

  Act. 13. 38, 39.
• * 1.42

  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.
• * 1.43

  Gal. 2. 21.
• * 1.44

  In his Choyse Sermons on Joh. 6. p. 227.
• * 1.45

  Pareus de ju∣stitia Christi activae & passivae.
• * 1.46

  Gal. 3. 21.
• * 1.47

  Gal. 5. 4.
• * 1.48

  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.
• * 1.49

  Mat. 5. 17, 18.
• * 1.50

  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.
• * 1.51

  Rom. 10. 4.
• * 1.52

  Tit. 2. 14.
• * 1.53

  He that is ac∣quitted from all sin by Gods forgiveness, is thereby made perfectly righ∣teous to eter∣nal life.
• * 1.54

  In his Method, pag. 175, 176.
• * 1.55

  Rom. 4. 25.
• * 1.56

  Adam in his innocent esta••e needed a co••∣firmation, but no justification properly so cal∣led.
• * 1.57

  Answer.
• * 1.58

  Doctor Willet denies the ob••∣dience of Christ in his suffer∣ings, in his death, in his conception, in his incarnation, and in his mi∣racles, to be any part of moral obedience, and affirms it to be but positive obedience only.