The meritorious price of mans redemption, or, Christs satisfaction discussed and explained ... by William Pynchon ...

But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the com∣pass of this Text, thus;

Damnation (saith he) is no part of the Gospel, yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed; He that is baptized shall be saved, he that beleeveth not is damned.

Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Go∣spel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail, but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it. But to speak more fully, the word Gospel must be considered two ways.

First, Either strictly, for the glad tidings of salvation one∣ly.

Or secondly, More largely, not only for the glad tidings of

salvation, but also as comprehending other appurtenances be∣longing to that Covenant, as Ceremonies or Seals, and so in case of neglect, or contempt, punishments; In the first sense the threatning of Damnation is no part of the Gospel; but in the second sense it is.

Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance, is to make good his answer to the Dialogue, namely, that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works, yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works; even as Damnation, though it be no part of the Gospel, yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel.

I say, the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer; The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it, and therefore he hath not as yet proved, that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17.

But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good, That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text; for saith he, in page 24, 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited, was a figure of Christ to come, Rom. 5. 14.

Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited; But in the effects that followed his eating prohibited; the typi∣cal Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ, lyes only in some general things, as thus; Adam was the head of that Covenant, which God made with him concerning the nature of all mankind, and so Christ was the head of the Covenant of grace, which God made with him concerning the Regenera∣ting of the nature of all the Elect; Adam by his disobedience merited a corrupt nature to all his posterity, and Christ by his obedience even to death, merited a sanctified nature to all his elect seed. The Reader may fetch the parallel from P. Martyr, Dr. Willet, and others, on Rom. 5. 19.

But what is the inference that Mr. Norton makes? namely, That Christ is contained within the compasse of this Text. I say, it follows not; for though there may be a resemblance be∣tween the first and second Adam in many other things, yet not

in all things, and therefore in some things Adam was no figure of Christ: as for example, He was no figure of Christ in bear∣ing the essential Curse. And that is the point which Mr. Norton doth aim at in this Text.

But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain (though Adam du∣ring the first Covenant perceived it not) that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God, during the first Covenant; It is very probable, saith he, That the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ, who is called, and indeed is, the Tree of life, Rev. 22. 2. And, saith he, If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text, the Text is not true.

Reply. 4. We may soon lose our selves in this dispute, if wee keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand, which Mr. Norton labors to confute.

The Dialogue saith, this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compasse of it, as liable to the death there threatned: But Mr. Norton cites another text to prove it, namely Gen 2. 9. and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compasse of this text of Gen. 2. 17. namely as the Surety of the Elect, and that thereby he was made liable to suffer the death there threatned; for saith he, Man sins, and man dyes (by vertue of this Text) either in his own person, or in the Man Christ Jesus.

But how doth all this that Mr. Norton hath said, suit to the point in hand? and how doth it tend to disprove what the Dia∣logue affirms?

1 Saith he, It is certain, that Christ was couched in this Text; but in his proof he only saith, It is very probable that the Tree of life, &c. in his Proposition he affirmeth, It is certain; but in his proof he saith, It is no more but probable.

But let his words be a little further examined; Where is Christ couched?

1 One while he tells us, That he is couched, and intended in some part of the revealed will of God, during the first Co∣venant.

2 Another while he tells us, That it is probable that the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ.

3 Another time he saith, That Christ must be within the

compasse of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. or else the Text is not true.

All these three considerations laid together, do prove that Christ is contained somewhere, or no where, in some Text, or in no Text.

And now let the judicious Reader judge what his Proposi∣tion, and his Proof doth amount to.

2 Examine his Discourse a little further; The Dialogue affirmeth, that Christ falls not within the compasse of this Text in Gen. 2. 17.

The Dialogue doth not meddle whether Christ was couched in any other Text.

2 The Dialogue denies that Christ was not within this text as liable to the death there threatned. Now then let it bee supposed that Mr. Norton could produce some other text, during the first Covenant, wherein Christ was included or pre∣figured: Suppose the Tree of life was a figure of him, though it be denied both by Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Burges, and others, as I have noted in Chap. 2. yet except he can prove that Christ was comprehended in this text, and that hee was thereby liable to the death there threatned, he doth but labor to no purpose.

3 Examine his arguing a little further: The Dialogue contends that Christ is not contained in the word Thou; Thou shalt surely dye. Thou Adam in thine own person; and thou Adam in thy Posterity (saith the Dialogue) But not thou in thy Surety shalt dye; The word Thou shalt dye, intends no more but the person or persons with whom the first Covenant was made.

But let us consider the Argument that doth arise from Mr. Nortons own words; And it may be framed thus:

Christ falls not within the compasse of the first Covenant of works, faith Mr. Norton in page 24.

But thou shalt dye (intending thereby the persons with whom the first Covenant was made) falls within the compass of the first Cove∣nant, as he affirmeth in his second Proposition.

Therefore Christ falls not within the first Covenant of works, because the word Thou, intends the persons only with whom the first Covenant was made.

And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself, by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the com∣passe of Gen. 2. 17.

Notes

• Rom. 5, 14.
• Rom. 5. 19.