SECT. II.

I Come now to prove my affirmative; namely, that the kinde of death that was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. must be understood onely of a double kinde of Spiritual death.

My reasons are grounded on two considerable circumstances in the Text.

1. On the circumstance of time: In the day, &c.

2. On the Antithesis of the said death, namely, on that kinde of life that was implicitely promised, in case Adam did but first perform the condition of the Covenant of nature on his part, by his first eating of the Tree of the two­fold life.

But 1. My Argument from the circumstance of time is thus framed.

What kinde of death soever it was that was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. was most Argument 1. strictly and fully executed in that very day [or time] in the which Adam did but first taste of the forbidden fruit, because it was delivered in the nature of a de­finitive, or of an absolute, or of a concluding threatning; being double in the Ebrew: In dying thou shall dye in the day thou eatest thereof.

But no other sort or kinde of death was strictly executed in that ve­ry day [or time] in the which Adam did first taste of the forbidden fruit, but the said double kinde of Spiritual death onely.

Therefore no other sort or kinde of death was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. to be strictly executed in that very day or time, in the which Adam did first taste of the forbidden fruit, but a double kinde of Spiritual death onely.

1. I shall not need to say much for the proof of the assumption, because I believe that there is no deliberate man that will say, that any other kinde of death was strictly executed in that very day or time, wherein Adam did first taste of the forbidden fruit; especially seeing it is as evident by Gen. 5. 5. (as the Sun at noon-day) that a bodily death was not then strictly executed, because he still lived in body 930 years after that day: and several old Authors do in­terpret the word death in Gen. 2. 17. as I do of a Spiritual death onely : and they give this reason for it, because Adam died not in body the same day, but li­ved [Page 19] 930 years after that day. Doctor Willet in Rom. 5. doth cite these three Several old au­thors have ex­pounded the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. of a Spiritual death in sin only Authors for it; 1. Philo. lib. de Alegor. legi mosaic. 2. Eucherus l. 1. in Genes. 3. Gregory in Epist. 31. ad Eulog.

These ancient writers have given the right sence of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. though Doctor Willet doth not stick to their exposition: and I do also finde, that sometimes it doth come to pass, that some ancient Orthodox expo­sitions are passed over, and not so well marked as they ought to be; either be­cause they give but a brief hint of the true exposition, or else because some lat­ter Expositors, which are not so sound, are too too commonly received for true; by the means whereof the judgement of others is forestalled.

4. I will adde unto these three ancient writers, what Mr. John Goodwin saith in Vindiciae Pidei, in pag. 104, 105. Upon deeper consideration (saith he) it will happily be found to be nearer the truth to hold, that in these words, Thou shalt die the death: Gods meaning was not to threaten eternal death, either according to the Letter, or by way of equivalency: but to have the word Death understood by Adam, as it indifferently signifieth that evil of punishment, which was represented to him by the name Death.

5. Mr. Baxter saith in his Epistle to his Aphorisms; I am not so clear and confident in my self, as to the nature of the death threatned in the first Cove­nant (made with Adam.)

2. As touching the proportion, it is so clear in it self, that I conceive there are none that are of a deliberate judgement, will deny it to be rightly ground­ed on the said definitive circumstance of time; in the same day, or in the same point of time, in the which Adam did but taste of the forbidden fruit. In dying thou shalt die; namely, thou shalt certainly die, even in that point of time with­out any delay: and to this sence of the word Day doth Ains. expound it in Lev. 7. 35, 36.

3. This sentence, In dying thou shalt die, is exactly limited to the very day The Ebrews do place much em­phasis in the doubling of Verbs, and therefore when threatnings are doubled, it notes them to be defi­nitive. or time of eating, because it is delivered in a doubled form of words; namely, as a definitive, or as a concluding threatning: as it is also well observed by our larger Annot. on 1. King. 8. 13. The Ebrews saith the Anxot. doth place much emphasis in the doubling of Verbs; and there the Annot. doth explain it in six particular places of doubling, and at last doth refer this doubled phrase, In dy­ing thou shalt die, in 2 Kings 1. 4. to the same phrase in Gen. 2. 17. The Anno [...]. doth first speak of this doubled phrase, In building I have built, 1 Kings 8. 13. and there it saith, the Ebrews do place much emphasis in the doubling of Verbs; for by that doubling of Verbs they do imply; 1. Certainty, Exod. 3. 7. 2. Abundance, Gen. 22. 17. 3. Diligence, Exod. 2. 19. 4. A full or a through de­ing of a thing, 1 Sam. 26. 25. 5. Certainty and Speed, 1 Sam. 27. 1. 6. The fi­nishing or perfecting of a thing, as in the said cited place of 1 Kings 8. 13. In building I have built; that is to say; I have perfectly finished the building. 7. Seeing this doubled phrase, In dying thou shalt die, in 2 Kings 1. 4. is the same with Gen. 2. 17. it implies the like definitive certainty in both places, though these two places speak not of the same kinde of death, but of two several and differing kinds of death : for that in 2 Kings 1. 4. speaks only of a bodily death, and Gen. 2. 17. speaks only of a double Spiritual death.

8. God said thus to Abraham in Gen. 15. 13. Thou shalt knowing know; that [Page 20] is, saith Ains. Thou shalt know assuredly: and there he doth refer this doubled phrase for the certainty thereof, to the like double phrase of certainty in Gen. 2. 17. and therefore our last Translators and the Geneva do render it, K [...]ow of a surety, because the said phrase doth imply, A short or an assured certainty.

9. Mr. Ains. doth observe the same rule of certainty from the doubling of The word Day in Gen. 2. 17. must not be ta­ken for a time to come, but for the point of time in that very day in the which Adam should but taste of the forbidden fruit. the word in Gen. 2. 17. This doubling of words (saith he) is often used in Scri­pture for more earnestness and assurance, and to signifie in things to come a speedy performance, Gen. 41. 32. Exod. 24. 16. Gen. 19. 19.

10. (Saith he) in Gen. 17. 13. the doubling of the command [He shall be circumcised with circumcision] was added both for the thing it self, and also for the time thereof, which was to be done in the eighth day after the birth: and so say I, the doubling of the threatning, in the day thou eatest thereof, In dy­ing thou shalt die, was added both for the certainty of the thing it self, and also for the punctual time of the execution thereof.

11. The like doubled threatning God denounced against Abimelech, in case he did not presently restore unto Abraham his Wife Sarah: Restore thou the Wife to the man, for he is a Prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and live thou, and if thou restore her not, know that in dying thou shalt die, Gen. 20. 7. This threatning was doubled for the assured certainty of his bodily death, in case he did not restore her: and in regard of the certainty, Ains. doth refer it to Gen. 2. 17.

12. Mr. Ains. also saith in Gen. 3. 4. the Devil doth impugn the certainty of Gods word, which had threatned assured death, in case Adam did but once eat of the forbidden fruit. This double threatning therefore, In the day thou eat­est thereof, in dying thou shalt dye, was to assure Adam, that it was a definitive or a concluding threatning.

13. And as touching the propriety of the word Day, and the punctual time of eating, I refer the Reader for his further satisfaction to Chap. 2. in my An­swer to Objection 3.

14. God had so strictly limited the execution of his said definitive threatning, to the very punctual time of that very day of Adams eating, that he could not repent of it, without the violation of his said difinitive threatning: For Gods repentance is nothing else, but his willing of the non execution of his threatned punishments, upon mans repentance. But God had not ordained any repentance in the Covenant of nature, to be performed by Adam as the condition on his part, to move God for the non execution of his said threatning: and thence it followes, that seeing God did not will any such change in Adam, that his said threatning was an absolute definitive threatning, and no way reverseable; and therefore it was fully and formally executed at the very point of time of that very day in the which he did but taste of the forbidden fruit.

15. Daneus saith in Jonah 3. 9. that the sentence of God is of two sorts; the first comminatory or of threatning onely, the other difinitive and absolute : this latter, saith he, can never be revoked, the former may (by repentance, &c.)

This distinction between Gods threatnings or sentence of punishment, makes it is clear as the Sun at noon-day, that the threatning in Gen. 2. 17. was not delivered as a comminatory threatning, but as an absolute definitive threatning, and therefore it was fully executed in the very punctual time of Adams eating, because God did at that instant time deprive Adam of his image of moral per­fections, [Page 21] and no repentance was ordained for his restoration to his said concrea­ted lite.

16. As it was Gods good will and pleasure freely to constitute the punishment The death that was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. hath two parts, as in Reply 7. The glorious Church of Christ upon earth, which some do say shall be without sin for a thou­sand years, is justly consuted by the defini­tive death in sin, that is in­flicted upon all Adams posteri­ty to the end of the world in Gen. 2. 17. It is no less then blasphemy, if it be not heresie, to affirm that Christ was our surety to suffer that kind of death which is threatned in the Covenant of nature. Rom. 5. 12. of a two [...]old Spiritual death, to be executed on our first parents, in the very punctual time that Adam should transgress the Covenant of nature, by eating of the forbidden fruit: and also that the said twofold death should in like sort fall upon all his natural posterity successively to the worlds end, as soon as they should become persons in the womb as Adam was, when he tasted of the forbidden fruit: so in like sort it followes from the Antithesis, that God did promise a twofold life to be continued to Adam and to all his natural posterity, in case he had but first eaten of G [...]ets Caijm the tree of the twofold life, as I noted it before in Reply 7. and also in Sect. 3. Reply 22, 23.

17. This precious rule of certainty, touching Gods definitive threatning in the Covenant of nature, Mr. Norton doth not observe, and therefore he doth confound this Covenant, and this threatned Spiritual death, with the other kinds of death that are threatned onely in the Covenant of grace, to the ur­ter confusion of sundry points of Divinity, and of the true sence of many Scri­ptures: for he doth affirm in his first foundation proposition, in pag. 2. that God did constitute Christ to be Adams surety in the Covenant of nature, for two main ends. 1. To do the command of that Covenant in a way of works, (which indeed required no other work, but to eat of the Tree of life in the earthly Paradise in the Countrey of Eden) and 2. To suffer the essential punish­ment of that cursed death, which was no other but a twofold Spiritual death, as I have explained it in Reply 6. and therefore it can be no less then blasphe­my, if it be not Heresie to affirm that Christ was Adams surety to suffer that twofold Spiritual death.

18. All such as are willing to embrace the truth in the love of it, may soon see that God hath put none else under the threatning of the Covenant of na­ture, but Adam and his natural generation onely, by Rom. 5. 12. and Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 5. and thence it followes, that seeing Christ was none of Adams natural generation, he cannot come under the Covenant of nature, as the surety of the elect, to do the command, and to suffer the curse of that Covenant for mans redemption: neither is there any redemption at all from the first part of the Spiritual death, but even the elect themselves do suffer it as long as they live in this world. And for the fuller confutation of his said heterodoxal tenent, I gave four reasons in my Dialogue, in pag. 5. why Christ cannot be our surety in the Covenant of nature; and those reasons stand still in their full force, like mount Sion, notwithstanding what Mr. Norton hath answered, or can answer: but when God shall enlighten his understanding, to distinguish the Covenant of nature from the Covenant of grace, then, and not till then he will see the strength of them. And 2. I have also shewed in my former printed Reply, that Christ could not be our surety in the Covenant of nature, in pag. 86, 150, 152.

1. The word Surety in Ebr. 7. 22. is applied by the Apostle to the everlasting Ebr. 7. 22. Priesthood of Christ, by his intercession in Heaven for all believers; and not to the Covenant of nature.

2. That thing which doth make Christ to be an everlasting surety (or cer­tainty) for believing sinners, in Heaven, is Gods unchangeable Oath: for it is [Page 22] by that unchangeable Oath that Christ is made a sure, a stedfast, an unalterable, an unchangeable, and an eternal High Priest, even now after his resurre­ction and assention into Heaven: for (saith the Apostle in vers. 24.) this man (i.e. this sure High Priest) because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood; wherefore he is able also to save them for evermore, that come un­to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them, Ebr. 7. 24, 25. with Ebr. 10. 12. See also at Reply 10.

3. He was made a Priest of a better Testament, then the outward typical Testament of works was; for that Testament which was made onely with the national Church at mount Sioa, was confirmed with no other blood but the blood of beasts onely, Exod. 24. and those typical Priests, and those typical works of the Law, were ordained but to justifie their bodies onely, from their ceremonial sins, by the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean Ewes, did sanctifie no other ways to the purifying of their flesh or bodies from their ceremonial sins. But Christ was made a High Priest of a better Testament, which he also confirmed by his own bloody death and sacrifice, for the purifying of the soul or conscience from moral sins: and now by his resurrection and assention into Heaven he continues to be a sure High Priest of the better Testament.

4. Others do expound the word Surety in Ebr. 7. 22. that Christ as Mediator, did undertake on Gods behalf to perform his Covenant towards us: and 2. That he also undertook on mans behalf, that they shall perform that obedience which God requires of them in his Covenant of grace. This assertion is in it self a most precious truth, as it doth arise from the word Mediator: but this truth doth not arise from the word Surety in Ebr. 7. 22. and therefore I believe that my for­mer exposition is most agreeable to the true sence of the word Surety in Ebr. 7. 22.

5. Mr. Norton doth all along confound the word Surety of the better Testa­ment, with the meer Covenant of nature made with Adam, which was not a­ny Testament, as the typical Covenant of works was with the Jews; neither is it now in being: but it was totally extinguished as soon as it was transgressed, so extreamly heterodox is his exposition of the word Surety in Ebr. 2. 22. But of this text see more in Chap. 11.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 11.

Reply 13 The argument is not at all infringed, by saying that Christ is our surety in relation to the Covenant of grace, (called a better Covenant in Ebr. 7. 22.) but not in relation to the Covenant of works: for (saith he) we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self obligeth us to fulfil the Covenant of works in our surety, Rom. 3. 31. There are many great errors in this assertion.

1. It is a common misleading error to call the Covenant of nature the Co­venant of works; as I have shewed it more at large elsewhere.

2. It is another great error, to say that we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self doth oblige us to fulfil the Covenant of works in our surety, see­ing it commanded no other work, but once eating of the tree of life, for the ful­filling of it : neither 2. doth the Covenant of grace oblige our surety to suffer that threatned punishment, seeing it was no other but a double Spiritual death.

3. It is another great error, to say as he doth in pag. 11. that we cannot ful­fil the righteousness of the Law in our surety by believing, (For saith establish­eth [Page 23] the Law, Rom. 3. 31.) If it were not a truth that, he fulfilled the Covenant Rom. 3. 31. of nature, which he calls the Covenant of works, for us; he cites Rom. 3. 31. to prove that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of nature, which he doth corruptly The Covenant of nature made with Adam was ordained to last no long­er, then till A­dams obedience or disobedience was tried by one transient act of eating only. call the Covenant of works. But in case he did cite an hundred Scriptures more to prove it, he should but so often take Gods Name in vain: for I have shewed in Sect. 3. that the Covenant of nature made with Adam was wholly extinguish­ed, as soon as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit, and had but received the threatned punishment of a double Spiritual death. The date of that arbi­trary and transient Covenant, was but like the date of the Kings arbitrary Let­ters Patent, which was ordained to stand no longer in force, but to such a day, or to such a point of time onely, or to the event of such an action; and then the date being expired, the said Letters Patent do cease to be any longer in sorce; and just so was the date of the Covenant of nature: it was (as I shew­ed before) to stand no longer in force, then till the first act of Adams eating, either of the tree of the twofold life, for the confirmation of his concreated perfections after Gods image, or for his deprivation of his concreated perfecti­ons by eating of the forbidden fruit: And therefore,

In case Cain or Abel had found any fruit on the said trees in their days, their eating of the former forbidden fruit had been no sin, because the said Cove­nant was not then in force, but it was made utterly null, as soon as Adam had received the threatned punishment of a double Spiritual death.

4. It is another great error, to affirm that Christs obedience to the moral Law of nature, was the fulfilling of the first Covenant made with Adam for our justification; seeing the Law of nature was not ordained to be the Cove­nant of nature for Adams justification. But in case Adams obedience to the Law of nature, had been ordained to be the condition of his fulfilling the Covenant of nature, then he could not have transgressed it, because his soul and body were created in perfect moral perfections; so that his understanding, will, and affections could not sin against the Law of his nature, until he had first trans­gressed the arbitrary Covenant of nature, which was founded onely on his tran­sient act of once eating of the forbidden fruit: and thence it followes, that that transient Covenant was to last no longer, then till the tryal of Adams obedi­ence, or disobedience was made by the said transient act of once eating onely: it was not made for the womans first act of eating, because not she, but he was ordained to be the head of that Covenant; therefore it was not the womans first act of eating the forbidden fruit that did break that Covenant, as it would have been, in case her act of eating had been a sin against any branch of the moral Law of her nature, seeing her single person was created after Gods image in a perfect conformity to every branch of the moral law of nature, as much as Adam was, as I have shewed it more at large in Chap. 4.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 26.

That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of Adams sin, is primarily in the curse; and therefore it is primarily to be understood: and from thence he infers, That death for sia, and not Death in sin, is of the essence of the punishment of sin.

And immediately before, he said thus; All that you say concerning Spiritu­al death befalling Adam, in the day that he sinned, as primarily inflicted, is [Page 24] vain and impertinent, because it denieth not the inflicting of eternal death to be intended afterwards : nay, saith he, it rather argueth, an eternal death (in Hell) to be primarily intended, because not executed according to that propo­sition. That which is first in intention, is last in execution.

There are many great errors in these answers.

Reply 14 1. It is a presumptuous error in the highest degree, to affirm that it was Gods intention in the Covenant of nature, to threaten Adam and all his natural po­sterity, with an eternal death in Hell: but I think I have made it evident be­fore in the beginning of Sect. 2. that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. (of what The death threatned in the Covenant of nature cannot be understood of an eternal death in Hell, because that death was not strictly and poenally execu­ted in the time of Adams eat­ing, as a Spiri­tual death in sin was. kind soever it was) was a definitive threatning; and therefore that it was most strictly and formally executed in the very same point of time of the same day, wherein Adam did but first taste of the forbidden fruit; and God doth still con­tinue to execute the same death most strictly, upon all Adams natural posterity successively, in the very same point of time, wherein they do become persons in the womb: and that death is executed as much upon the elect, as upon the re­probate, as a satisfaction to Gods justice for their breach of the Covenant of nature.

2. In case God had intended (or ordered) to threaten an eternal death in Hell to Adam and to all his natural posterity, by his said definitive sentence, as he did a double Spiritual death, he should have thrown Adam and Eve into Hell in the very time of his eating, and then the world had been made and de­stroyed within the compass of the first six days: but seeing God had elected a certain number of Adams fallen posterity to an eternal life in Heaven, he could not condemn them to Hell by that definitive sentence in Gen. 2. 17. for then he should both elect them and reject them from all eternity; which is to confound Gods decrees. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth affirm in pag. 27. that eternal death was never intended as concerning the elect, and yet he seems to contradict that assertion by this forecited assertion.

3. It is another presumptuous error in the highest degree, to judge of Gods secret and eternal intentions, touching his definitive threatning in Gen. 2. 17. as if he intended an eternal death in Hell by that threatning, whiles Adam stood in his innocency; for in the time of his innocency there was no other revealed Law or Covenant that threatned death, but the revealed Law of the Covenant of nature in Gen. 2. 17. And in the beginning of this Section I have shewed that law did not threaten any other death but a double Spiritual death onely.

4. It is another grand error, to affirm that the primary punishment of a Spi­ritual death, denieth not the inflicting of an eternal death in Hell to be intend­ed afterwards: nay (saith he) it rather argueth that eternal death in Hell was primarily intended, because not executed according to that proposition: that which is first in intention, is last in execution.

Reply 15 I have shewed before, that the primary punishment was a double Spiritual death, and that the said Spiritual death was inflicted as a satisfaction to Gods justice in that Covenant; and therefore that it doth deny the inflicting of an eternal death in Hell to be intended afterwards for the punishment of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit.

2. (Saith he) eternal death was primarily intended, because it was not executed according to that proposition; that which is first in intenti­on is last in execution.

[Page 25] Reply 16 That proposition, upon which he builds his judgement, is no better to trust to then a staffe of a broken Reed, as such unsound confidence is called in Esa. 36. 6. for this proposition is soundly confuted by Mr. Lawson. In his Body of Divinity. pag. 118.

There be (saith he) two propositions, unworthy to be made principles in the doctrine of Gods decrees, (or of Gods secret intentions.)

The first is, Quod primum in intentione, id ul [...]imum in executione, that which is first in intention, is last in execution.

The second is, Ordinate volens, prius vult finem, deinde media ad finem, he that acts rationally and orderly, first wills the end, then the means to the end.

These (saith he) are made principles in Divinity, and must be the measure and rule according unto which we must understand the word of God, speaking of his high and misterious decrees.

Yet (1. Saith he) these do not agree unto God, but applied unto him dero­gate from his glorious perfections.

2. (Saith he) they are neither truly understood, nor rightly applied to the decrees of God.

3. (Saith he) the first (taken out of the blasphemous Commentator, whom some think to be Averoes, or some other) is falsely understood, and otherwise interpreted then the Author first meant it, as Occam tells us: for thus some ex­pound it; that [...]hich is the chiefest thing in intention, is that to which all things in the execution are ultimately referred : and what is this to their purpose who use it, or rather abuse it?

This interpretation doth not only confute Mr. Nor [...]ons inference, but it doth also much strengthen my exposition of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. to be intended of no other kind of death, but of a Spiritual death onely: for unto the execution of that death (by depriving Adam of his concreated life of moral perfections) all things in the Covenant of nature is to be referred, and not to those other kinds of death, which were not threatned until the after Covenant of grace was first declared) His second I omit, because it doth not concern my present Reply.

4. Saith Mr. Norto [...], that which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of Adam sin, is primarily in the curse; and therefore it is primarily to be understood. And from thence he doth infer, That death for sin, and not Death in sin, is of the essence of the punishment of sin.

Reply 17 I have abundantly shewed, that the Spiritual death that was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the onely essence and substance of that punishment that was in­flicted on Adam, and on all his natural posterity successively to the worlds end, as a satisfaction to Gods justice in that Covenant.

But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 27.

Eternal death was never at all intended concerning the elect: however, cer­tain it is, that death for sin, as concerning the essential poenal part thereof, is sol [...]ly intended concerning Christ.

Reply 18 It is a double-dyed error to affirm, that the essential poenal part of Hell tor­ments was solely intended concerning Christ, as the surety of the elect.

This double-dyed error I have sufficiently confuted before, in Reply 12. and in Chap. 11. and in my former printed Reply in Chap. 4. and often in that Book. And saith Mr. Woodbridge in his Method, pag. 2. 33. It is certain there is some [Page 26] kinde of evil in the curse executed on sinners, which was never executed upon Christ, as an exclusion from all interest in Gods favor, the defacing of his image in their souls, rage and despair of conscience, and the like. And P. Mar­tyr saith, when Christ was even now dying, he said, Fa [...]her, into thy hands In Com. pl. par. 3. pag. 344. Erasmus cited by Doctor Alle in Poor mans Library. Tom. 2. pag. 75. I commend my Spirit: from whence he concludes thus; they which be in the hands of God undoubtedly are not tormented with the pains of Hell. And Erasmus saith, whereas the Schoolmen do teach, that Christ by reason of the complexi­on (or temperature) of his humane body, (which in him, say they, was most subtil, and consequently of most quick and sharp feel [...]ng) did suffer more grievous and bitter pains, then any man may possibly suffer; the pain of them onely exce­pted which are perpetually damned in Hell: He doth exempt Christ from suffer­ing the pains of Hell. And of this see more in my former printed Reply, pag. 294. And now I advise the Reader to remember the caution which our Saviour gave to his Disciples, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadduces, i.e. of their corrupt tenents, Matth. 16, 6, 11, 12. and mark this, that our Saviour did double his charge, because the danger was great; and this cau­tion is sutable to such as corrupt their own and others judgements, by confound­ing the Covenant of nature with the Covenant of grace, in their promises and threatnings; for thereby many dangerous errors are hatched. The prudent Reader therefore had need to be more then ordinary careful to remember this caution.

5. But for the further clearing of that double Spiritual death that is threatned in the Covenant of nature in Gen. 2. 17. I will make some use of Mr. Nor [...]ons two Queries, to my sence.

1. What is vindicative justice, strictly taken in the Covenant of nature? Quere 1.

It is that peculiar justice that God did freely constitute for the breach of the Answ. Law of that Covenant; namely, it was a twofold Spiritual death, as I have opened it before in Reply 7. Now the essence of a Law doth consist in this, that it is the declared will of the Law-giver, Deut. 29. 29. Deut. 30, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. It is not his undeclared or secret will that determines what shall be our duty to do, and what rewards and penalties shall be due unto us: but it is his de­clared will or law onely.

Now the threatning that was annexed to his declared Law of the Covenant of nature in Gen. 2. 17. was an act of Gods good pleasure, from whence did follow his proceeding with Adam, according to that condition which he freely constituted between him and Adam in that Covenant; namely, that in case he did transgress that arbitrary Law and Covenant, by eating of the forbidden fruit, then in the same day or time of his eating, In dying he should die; name­ly, he should certainly die at that time: and it is certain, that he died no other death at that present, but a double Spiritual death. 1. By the loss of Gods image, and 2. By his new habit of sinning against the Law of his nature; and therefore no other death was threatned by that Law and Covenant.

What was the supreme and first cause why God did threaten Adam and all his Quere 3. natural posterity successively, with the strict execution of the said twofold vin­dicative Spiritual death, seeing none of Adams posterity did actually eat of the forbidden fruit with their teeth, but Adam onely?

It was the free constitution of Gods arbitrary will, to make such a Law and Ans. 2. [Page 27] Covenant. The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends (not upon Gods moral Law, but) upon his arbitrary will. It was the good pleasure of his arbitrary will, to make such a Covenant with Adam, and all his natural poste­rity Gods arbitrary will made it just, that in case Adam the head of the Co­venant did but first taste of the forbidden fruit, it should i [...] ­volve all his natural posteri­ty both in his sin, guilt, and punishment: but this a [...]bi­trary Law, and the justice of it doth [...]ot alike bind posterity to the sin, guilt, and pu [...]ishment of Adams transgression of Gods moral Law. Jos. 6. 2, 18. Jos. 7. 11, 12. successively, his will was the rule of his righteousness in that Covenant: it was the cause of all causes, the reason of all reasons; and in one word, all reason in one reason. P. Martyr saith, no cause can be given of the will of God, though sometimes in some cases some reason may be shewed of the will of God; which though they may be called reasons, yet (saith he) they ought not to be called causes, especially efficient causes: and accordingly one chief reason why God made man mutable, and why he suffered him to transgress his said arbitrary Law and Covenant, was to make manifest the riches of his grace in Christ, for the salvation of sinners: and to this sence I have cited Mr. War­ren in Chap. 12.

3. Take notice that this positive Law and arbitrary Covenant is singular, be­cause it is no where else to be parallelled in all its circumstances: and yet [...]t may in some measure be exemplified by that arbitrary and transient positive Law and Covenant, which God was pleased to make with Joshua for all Israel; namely, that in case any of the souldiers which Joshua sent to destroy Jericho, did but actually take the least quantity of any of the Silver or Gold that was in the Ci­ty, to their own private use, which God had consecrated, sanctified, or set apart, for the onely use of his Tabernacle, Jos. 6. 19, 24. then it should not only make that person guilty, but it should also make all Israel guilty of that sacrilegious transgression.

This Law was declared unto Joshua only, as he was now constituted to be the bead of all Israel, that were now incorporated into a national Church : and therefore God made this law to be binding to all Israel; namely, that in case any one of the Souldiers did but transgress this declared arbitrary Law and Covenant, in should involve the whole corporation under the guilt and punish­ment of that sacrilegious transgression, Jos. 7. 11, 12. compared with Jos. 6. 2. 18.

4. From the constitution of this arbitrary Law and Covenant it came to pass, that though Achan alone did commit the trespass with his hands, by taking some Silver and a wedge of Gold in a private way for his own use, yet by Gods relative justice in that Covenant, though all Israel were ignorant of his sins, yet every person of them (by vertue of Gods positive Covenant) became guilty of his transgression: and therefore Achan alone did not perish in his iniqui­ty, Jos. 22. 20. compared with Jos. 7. 14, 15, 24, 25.

5. It is worthy of all observation, that this supreme arbitrary Law is twice over called a Covenant; namely, with the Nation, and in that respect it was given to Joshua as the head of all Israel: and from that Covenant it came to pass that all Israel were involved in the gu [...]lt of Achans sin.

1. It is said in vers. 15. that Achan did transgress this Covenant, because he was the onely actor of the transgression with his hands, (as Adam was with his teeth.)

2. It is also said in vers. 11. that all Israel did transgress this Covenant, be­cause God by his supreme will had made all Israel parties in that Covenant, and so consequently they were made parties with Achans sin, guilt, and punishment: [Page 28] (just as all Adams natural posterity were) and therefore God might as justly have destroyed all Israel for their transgression of that Covenant, as he did the children of Achan; for by Gods relative justice in that Covenant, all Israel were as much guilty as Achans children were; though it pleased God in much mercy to accept of their repentance, and to remit the rigor of his said relative justice to Israel, though not to Achans family: and all Israel had formerly vowed the destruction of the Cities, and of the persons of the Canaanites, and their goods to the Lord, Numb. 21. 2. compared with Lev. 27. 28, 29.

6. This kinde of justice is peculiar onely to Gods supreme will, in his arbi­trary Laws and Covenants, in a far differing manner from his relative justice in his common moral Laws: for by the justice of his common moral Laws, the children might not be put to death for their fathers moral transgressions, Deut. 24. 16. but by those Laws the particular person onely that sinned was to be put to die. And because this positive Law was very far different from the common Law of nature, therefore the punishment threatned was also far different.

7. Though this transient positive Law and Covenant doth not fully parallel the transient positive Law and Covenant of nature, made with Adam and his natural posterity, yet it gives much light thereto: and in that respect I did propound it to the Readers consideration in my former printed Reply, in pag. 276. and again in this Treatise, in Chap. 5. Sect. 2. where I have also observed many other sorts of transient positive Laws and Covenants, which do also give much light to the nature of that transient Covenant thas was made with Adam: and in some place of this Book I have instanced that arbitrary Law and threatining against the unwitting infant, (and not against the knowing parent) for the said infants break [...]ng of Gods positive Covenant, in case it were not circumcised on In the City of God. li. 16. c. 27 See Ains. in Gen. 17. 11. Gods arbitrary Laws and Co­venants must be obeyed, (or else the threa [...] ­ned penalties will be execu­ted) though many times they cannot be obey­ed, unless the moral Law be transgressed: and thence it followes, that Gods positive Laws may be called his su­preme Laws. the eighth day after his birth, see Ge [...]. 17: 14. This positive Law did so amuse Austin, that he made circumcision to belong to the first Covenant made with Adam. But P. Martyr cites two exposit [...]ons of this positive threatning in Rom. 4. 11. First, (saith he) it did belong to the childe when he came to full age, in case he should then neglect to be circumcised : Secondly, saith he, God is not to be accused of injustice, if sometimes he killed the infant that was brought up un­circumcised. But in the third place I conceive that Maymony doth expound it best; he saith, that if the father or master doth transgress, and circumcise not, they break a Commandment, but are not guilty of cutting off; for cutting off belongs but to the uncircumcised person himself. And P. Martyrs second answer agrees well to this of Maymony; Gods arbitrary will is the only rule of justice in all his supreme arbitrary Laws.

8. Tis worthy of all observation, that Gods positive Laws and Covenants are many times so strictly commanded, that they must be obeyed, though they do sometimes command things to be done contrary to the moral Law of nature, or else the threatned penalties will be most strictly executed: for by the moral Laws of nature Abraham was commanded to preserve his sons life; but yet God did by his supreme positive Law command him to kill his son for a sacrifice.

2. Adam was not forbidden by the moral Law of nature to eat of the tree of knowledge, because it was good food by creation, and therefore by the Law of nature he had a liberty of power to eat of it: but yet it was by Gods supreme Law and arbitrary Will, made unlawful to be eaten, and in that respect he [Page 29] might not eat of it, under the penalty of a double Spiritual death, to be assu­redly executed upon him in the very time of his eating it.

9. The moral Law of nature and nations commanded Gideon to gather a nu­merous Army, to encounter the numerous Army of the Midia [...]ites; but by Gods supreme positive Law he was commanded to send away his numerous Ar­my, and to take no more but those three hundred men that lapped water in their hands: and in obedience thereto God promised him the victory.

These and such like positive Laws and Covenants cited in Chap. 5. do tell us, that Gods positive Laws and Covenants are not grounded in, or from the ju­stice of the moral Law of nature, but from Gods supreme and arbitrary will onely; and therefore great care ought to be taken to make a right distinction between those Laws.

10. Sundry of Gods positive Laws have no relation at all to the moral Law of nature, nor yet to the Covenant of grace, as it is evident by the first Cove­nant of nature, and by other positive Laws and Covenants cited in Chap. 5. and De civitate Dei, li. 16. c. 27 [...] so saith Austin; there are many Testaments or Covenants besides the Old and New: and he gives an instance in the first Covenant made with Adam; When­soever thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death: but (saith he) the Law was afterwards given, and that brought the more light to mans judgement in sin. In these words he doth plainly distinguish the first Covenant made with Adam, from the decalogue, as being no part of it; therefore he could not hold the de­calogue to be the second edition of the Covenant made with Adam, as Mr. Nor­ton doth.

11. I say notwithstanding, that sundry of Gods positive Laws were ordained to be the typical part of the Covenant of grace and reconciliation; and in that respect they d [...] relate to the decalogue, as it was given for the Covenant of grace.

12. It is also necessary to be noted, that sundry of Gods positive Laws did re­late to the national Church of the Jews onely for a time, and not to other na­tions.

13. Tis as necessary also to be noted, that sundry of Gods positive Laws and Covenants did relate onely to particular persons for some one transient act for the trial of their obedience onely, as I have shewed in Chap. 5.

14. But I pray the Reader to take special notice, that the Covenant of na­ture was not made with Christ, as the surety of the elect, to do that Law, and to suffer that curse for mans redemption, as Mr. Norton doth most dangerously affirm in his first foundation proposition, in pag. 2. This is a great foundation error, and therefore I do the more often reprove it, and pray the Reader to take heed of it.

6. For the further clearing of the threatning of the Covenant of nature, it is necessary to answer some objections.

1. Pigghius doth make the corruption of our nature to be the natu­ral effect of Adams sin.

2. It is also affirmed by some learned Protestants, that the corrupti­on of nature, called Original sin, is conveyed to the body by the act of generation, before the immortal soul is united to the body.

Reply 19 Some do cite P. Martyr for this last assertion; and yet I find that he doth in [Page 30] effect affirm the contrary: for he affirmeth that the soul is not corrupted of the body by any natural action: but the ground and reason thereof (saith he) is rather taken from the justice of God, whereby the grace of the Spirit, and the Heavenly gifts wherewith man was endowed before his fall, were removed from him when he sinned: and this withdrawing of grace (saith he) came of the justice of God; and then when God had once withdrawn his gifts, streightway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord. In these words he doth plainly affirm, that the soul was not corrupted by the body, but by the justice of God: and thence it followes, that Original sin is not conveyed to the body by the act of generation, as an efficient cause, but only as it is, Causa sine qua non.

But saith Pigghius, the loss of Original justice in children is no sin, because it was not lost through their default.

Reply 20 Pigghius doth reason more like a Nuturalist, or more like a Lawyer, then a Divine: and to reason thus, saith P. Martyr, is to call God to an account: but (saith he) God is not to be compelled to order, neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws, but according to his own arbitrary will and pleasure. See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. pag. 124. and in Com. pl. p. 122.

2. Mr. Calvin saith in John 3. 6. Original sin cometh not so much by beget­ting, as by the ordinance of God: and by and by after (saith he) every one of us doth not so much draw vice and corruption from our parents, as we are alto­gether corrupted in Adam alone; because as soon as he was fallen away, God did by and by take away that which he had given to mans nature.

3. The French Academy saith, par. 2. p. 519. souls cannot be joyned to their bodies with any other condition, then that into which our first parents brought all their children by Adams sin: wherefore we must not look for the cause of our Original sin neither from creation, nor from the generaton of the body from the seed: neither must we search for the corruption of souls from their en­trance and conjunction with their bodies, as if they received it from them: but we must look for it, From that blo [...] of [...] unto which the whole race of man­kind was subject, through the fall and corruption of the first stock, (namely, by deprivation) And in that decree of God, whereby he hath condemned mankind, by his most just judgement (in Gen. 2. 17.) without any further inqulry after the means and manner how it came to pass: and to this very sence doth Bucanus speak in Com pl. p. 96.

2. It is affirmed by some learned Protestants, that Original sin is communicated to posterity, by the natural act of generation, and they ground it on Psal. 51. 5. In sin hath my mother conceived me. Psal. 51. 5.

Reply 21 This error doth arise from their mistaking of the true and full sence of the Ebrew word in Psal. 51. 5. For first, the Ebrew word Cham doth not properly signifie concei [...]ed, but warmed: I [...] sin ha [...]h my mother warmed me!

2. This Ebrew word is of a large signification, and therefore the full sence of it must be looked into, before it can be resolved how, or in what sence his mother did warm him. First therefore consider that this word doth signifie any kind of warming or heating, either of shorter or of longer continuance: and in that respect it may signifie not only the first act of warming or heating, that is used in the first act of conception, but it may be applied to the continued act of warm­ing the conception in the womb until its birth: yea Mr. Ains. doth also affirm [Page 31] in Gen. 3. 16. that the Original word for conception is put for the whole space of Original sin is not imputed to the conception in the womb, until it is be­come a person by the insusio [...] of the soul, as Adam was a person when he was deprived of Gods [...]o [...] ­create life of moral persecti­o [...]s. time that the childe is in the mothers body, until the birth; and in that large sence is the word warmed to be taken in Psal. 51. 5.

And for the want of this consideration, some Expositors do interpret this warming of the first short warming act only, that is used in the first act of con­ception, and they are led thereto by the restrained sence of the same Ebrew word in Gen. 30. 38, 39, 41. and in Gen. 31. 10. For in these places the said Ebrew word is used only for the first short heating act of conception: and from thence they conclude that Davids words (In sin hath my mother warmed me, or heated me) must be understood of the first short act of heating him in her first conce­ption: And 2. From thence they do also conclude, that Original sin is con­veyed to posterity by that natural act of generation. And to this sence doth Bith­ner in his Praris interpret Psal. 51. 5. Fo vit & incal [...] a me mater mea, i.e. in fervore libidinis conceptus sum. 2. I finde also that some other learned Prote­stants (though they deny Original sin to be conveyed in the first act of conce­ption, yet) affirm that Original sin doth belong to the conception, as soon as the body is perfectly shaped; and yet, say they, before the immo [...]tal soul is infused and united to the body: and to this sence doth Doctor Bilson expound Psal. 51. 5. In his Survey of Christs suf­ferings, p. 173, 174, 175. with the concurrence of several Orthodox writers.

3. I shall decline from both the said expositions, and concur with them that affirm that we are not warmed in our mothers womb in sin, until the continu­ed act of warming hath made the mass to become a person by the union of the immortal soul to the body; even as Adam was a person when he sinned against the Covenant of nature, and when he received the punishment of a Spiritual death, by being deprived of his concreated life after Gods image in moral per­fections : the loss of that concreated life is called death in G [...]. 2. 17. and the essential life of the soul is now infused without that concreated life: and for the want of it the now blinded will doth act irregularly; and this blinded will is now called Original corruption.

Mr. Woodbridge saith, that Adam represented all mankind, as being virtually In his Method, p. 133. and Baxter in Con­fess. p. 252. and Warren on Justifi. p. 70. to 75. where he cites Wotton, and other Or­thodox writers. in the same obligation with himself: and therefore (saith he) his offence was the act of the whole humane nature, though it be not imputed to particular per­sons until they begin to exist: and he refers the Reader for further light to Paul Ferrium: and to this effect he speaks also in pag. 254.

4. It is further evident that the said Hebrew word Cham in Psal. 51. 5. must be taken for the continued act of heating the conception in the womb until its birth, because that word is applied to the full hatching of the Ostrich eggs; her care is to keep them warm continually in the warm dust, until they be hatched, Job 39. 14. (and this kinde of warming heat did bring life again into the child that was thought to be dead, 2 Kings 4. 34.) Davids meaning therfore was, that as soon as he was become a person in his mothers womb, he was warmed therein in Original sin until his birth.

5. David in his confession in Psal. 51. 5. doth express a personality in his mothers womb. First he saith, I [a person] was born in iniquity: but by born he doth not mean his birth into the light of the Sun; but his meaning was that I [a person] was born or carried about in my mothers womb in iniquity: and therefore 2. He doth adde (by way of explanation) And in sin hath my mother [Page 32] warmed me; namely, me a person in her womb. But in case any conceive that he said thus, I was first born into the world in iniquity, and then after that, Con­ceived or warmed in sin, they must conceive also that David set the Cart before the Horse, by putting his birth into the world before his conception in his mo­thers womb: therefore to make him speak in order, his words must be thus un­derstood; I (a person) was born about in my mothers womb in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother warmed me a person in her womb until my birth.

6. As the Covenant of nature was not made with Adams body alone, much less was it broken by him, until his body was made a person capable of break­ing it: just so it is with his natural posterity; they are not capable of breaking that Covenant in Adam, nor yet of suffering that double Spiritual death, until they are become persons in the womb by the union of their soul to their body: but then by vertue of Gods supreme arbitrary Law and Covenant they are made capable subjects of that punishment.

7. The Ebrew word Cham of Cha [...]am signifieth Light, in Es. 18. 4. and thence the Sun hath its name, in Es. 24. 23. Es. 30. 26. and so in Psal. 19 6. It is said, that nothing is hid from the heat thereof, and so consequently nothing is hid from the light thereof; for its heat and light are united: and thence it comes to pass, that all things are heated, and wormed, and cherished▪ both with the heat and with the light thereof united. The like may be said of the continued act of conception; as soon as there is a person in the womb, there is both heat and light; namely, as soon as the rational soul is infused into the body; then, and not till then, that person is made guilty of Adams sin, and of Adams punish­ment of a double Spiritual death, because the soul as it hath an essential life is then infused; but not as it had a concreated life after Gods image in Adams creation.

8. The said Ebrew word is so large, that it is not only applied to actions that are heating and warming, but also to the heating of aff [...]ctions, as to the heat­ing of the affection of anger, love, joy, zeal or jealousie: therefore seeing it is so largely used, the more heed must be taken to the context where it is used, by the which the judicious Student shall be directed either to take the word in a more large, or in a more restrained sence, either to a short act of heating, or to a continued act of heating.

9. My said answers unto the two former Queries, and unto the Objections about Original sin, may serve not only as a S [...]ord to cut, but also as a leading truth to unloose many knots of carnal reason, touching the kinde of death that was threatned in the Covenant of nature in Gen. 2. 17.

10. Take notice that God did not first make this Covenant with Adams single person as soon as he was created, but he deferred it until the woman was crea­ted; yea, he deserred it until they were married together, and also until they had received the command to become one flesh, for the procreation of their like in nature, Gen. 1. 28. with Gen. 2. 24. and then after all these distances of time God brought them into Paradise, and shewed them the two Trees, and said unto them, this is the Tree of the twofold life, eat of this tree and live for ever the life of thy concreated perfections: but eat not of this other Tree, for in the day thou eatest thereof in dying thou shalt die; namely, thou shalt be deprived of thy perfections, and all thy natural posterity successively.

SECT. III.

DEclaring my second reason, why the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. must My second rea­son. be understood of a double Spiritual death only, is taken from the Anti­thesis; namely, from that kind of life that was implicitely promised to Adam, in case he did but first eat of the Tree of the twofold life.

Reply 32 It is generally granted, that the threatning of death in Gen. 2. 17. did im­ply a promise of life, in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of the two­fold life, in obedience to the positive command of the Covenant of nature.

2. It is also evident, that the kind of life that was promised, was no other but the confirmation of his concreated life. The Ebrew words, Gnets Caijm, in Gen. 2. 9. Gen. 2. 9. is by some translated singularly, The Tr [...]e of life, and by others it is translated plurally, The Tree of live [...], but I think it ought rather to be tran­slated, The Tree of the twofold life, because Caijm is in the dual number.

3. This translation doth most fitly answer to the foregoing phrase of N [...]sh [...] ­mah Caijm, in vers. 7. The Spirit of the twofold life: the whole verse runs thus. Gen. 2. 7. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (or the spirit) of the twofold life: others translate it more plurally lives, because of the sundry faculties and operations, which they conceive are in the immortal soul; though it is questioned by Mr. Baxter and others, whether In Aphoris. pag. 252. the immortal soul hath such distinct faculties. 2. Bucanus and others do tran­slate it plurally upon another account; namely, in relation to the vegetative, sen­sitive, and rational lives: but others do conceive, that God did not inspire the It is left for a farther disqu­sition to the Reader, whe­ther the sensi­tive life be not in the body be­fore the immor­tal soul is in­fused, though it be not confirm­ed until the soul is infused. Lev. 17. 11, 14. vegetative, and the sensitive lives with the same breath, when he inspired the immortal soul, but that those two lives were created as the true parts of Adams body of the dust, before his immortal soul was infused, and that ever since they are generated with the body: for at first, when God did create Adams body, he did not create it without veins, nor without blood in those veins: and thence it doth necessarily follow, that his sensitive or vital soul was also created with his blood : for the Scriptures do tell us that the vital soul of man, as well as the vi­tal soul of the beast, is in the blood; namely, by creation and generation, Lev. 17. 11, 14. Gen. 9. 4, 5, 6. Psal. 30. 10. See Aias. in the places cited.

But I perceive that the most of our latter writers do think otherwise; name­ly, that there is no vegetative or sensitive life in the body, until the immortal soul be first inspired to give being to the said lives: and so they make all the three sorts of lives to be inspired into Adams body with the same breath; which is done as they conceive upon the conception in the womb, about the space of forty or forty five days after the first conception in the matrix. And Mr. Weames I [...] his observa­tions moral and natural, pag. 7. and in his Por­traiture, pa. 52. is so confident, that this is the only truth, that he doth roundly reprove all such as hold otherwise: he grants also that tis commonly holden, that we have first the life of the plant by the vegetative faculty only, and then the sensitive life before the rational soul is infused: and yet he doth also affirm in his Por [...]raiture, that the vegetative and sensitive faculties are virtually in the seed in the conce­ption. I freely leave all these assertions to the Readers disquisition : my design is no other then this; namely, to make a clear d [...]stinction between the passions of the vital and immortal soul, especially as it concerns the sufferings of Christ: but [Page 34] yet I do apprehend as abovesaid, that when God did first create Adams body, he did create it with veins full of blood, and so consequently with a sensitive or vital soul in that blood, before his immortal soul was inspired.

4. The Fre [...]ch Academy saith, The seed is a body that hath in it self a ve­getative In par. 2. pag. 386, 500, 501. Some call the sensitive affe­ctions the infe­rior part of the rat [...]onal soul. In his Survey, pag. 173. Carlile in his Descent, p. 146 soul, and that the animal spirits are only the instruments of the soul, and not the soul it self: and 2. The French Academy saith, That many great Divines and Doctors do agree with Galen, Pla [...]o, and Aristo [...]le, that the vegera­tive and sensitive soul is no other thing, then either the natural and vital spirits, or else the temperament: and for this cause Occam saith plainly, that there are two distinct souls in man, the one reasonable, and the other sensual.

5. I find that Doctor Bilson doth agree with their judgement, and so doth Carlile. I think (saith Carlile) that [...]ephes (the vital spirit) is no part of the immortal soul, but tis proper only to the body, and to those parts of man that r [...]se with the body, and dy with the body; and that it consisteth in blood, breath, life, vital spirit, senses, and in the whole natural substance of every lively and corruptible creature. And saith he a little before, Aristotle will not have the immortal soul to be any part of the vegetative and sensitive soul, which are corruptible and mortal, and die with the body; but (saith he) the im­mortal soul cometh from God. And to this sence doth Lupset speak in his de­scription Lupsetes de­scription of a natural death, is remarkable. of our natural death: In our death (saith he) the body in a man­ner doth leave the soul, before the soul leaves the body; for it is the body by it self forsaking life, that causeth the soul to depart : this I believe is a sound truth.

And from hence it followes:

1. That Gnets Caijm in Gen. 2. 9. cannot sitly be translated lives in relation to the vegetative, sensitive and rational lives, as if they were all connexed to­gether in one so I: but I rather think (as I said before) that Gnets Caijm should A true descri­ption of the twofold life and twofold death of Adams rational soul. This assertion is explained by an apt similitude in Bucanus Com. pl. p. 104. be translated the Tree of the twofold life, in relation to N [...]sh [...]mah Caijm in v. 7. which signifies the breath of the twofold life : for the immortal soul which God inspired or blew into Adams nostrils, had a twofold life : the first may be cal­led the absolute, or the essential life of his soul; the second the concreated life of his essential life, after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections; and so this concreated life was but an accident to his absolute life: and there­fore it might be continued, or it might be removed from his absolute life, with­out the loss of his absolute life. And 2. This concreated life may also most fitly be called his relative life, because it: related to the conditions that God made with Adam in the Covenant of nature; namely, that in case he did first eat of the Tree of the twofold life, then his said relative life should be confirmed and continued as an inseparable adjunct to his essential life, and to all his natural posterity successively: but in case he did first eat of the prohibited Tree, then he should be deprived of his said concreated life: and this deprivation is proper­ly called death in Gen. 2. 17. And from that deprivation the will of the essential soul, being of a very active nature, could not act any otherwise then irregular­ly, running like a blind Horse that is full of mettle, into danger and mischief continually; and therefore it did necessarily act irregularly and confusedly, ac­cording to its now blinded reason and will, and according to Satans suggestions; so that the thoughts and imaginations of the heart are evil, and only evil, and [Page 35] that continually, against every branch of the moral Law; and this evil habit of sinning is properly called death in sin: and in this sort the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. may most fitly be called a twofold death, as his life (if he had stood in his created purity) had been a twofold life: and though Adam was deprived of his concreated life for his transgression of the Covenant of nature, yet his absolute or essential life was still continued even after his said Spiritual death in sin, and shall also be continued to all eternity.

6. Take notice that there is a considerable difference among writers, in the P. du Motilin i [...] his Anatomy of Arminia­nism. Adams concre­a [...]ed life was not super [...]at [...] ­ral, but conna­tural only. See Weames in his Portraiture, pag. 251. description of the true nature of Adams relative life.

1. Mr. Calvin doth often call it a supernatural life, and so doth P. du Moulin: and the Papists do more especially affirm that man lost not his natural conditi­on, but his supernatural gifts: but I dissent from them.

2. I joyn with them that affirm that Adam had no other life to lose, but that which was connatural only. Mr. Weames doth strongly oppose the former te­nent, and doth confidently affirm that Adam relative life was natural only, be­cause it had relation only to the Covenant of nature, and that it should have been continued to all his posterity by propagation (namely, by propagation as it is causa sine qua non) but efficiently by Gods relative justice to his said Covenant; namely, that in case Adam had but performed the condition of that Covenant on his part, by eating first of the Tree of the twofold life, then his concreated life should have been his life relatively to that Covenant of nature only: but in case he did first eat of the prohibited Tree, then in dying he should die, (i.e.) he should be deprived of that concreated l [...]fe of his nature, according to Gods re­lative justice in the threatning of that Covenant.

3. Mr. Walker doth as stiffely oppose the former tenent, as Mr. Weames doth, and so In his Doctrine of the Sabbath, pag 33, 34, 38, 39, 58. and in his Treatise of the Covenants doth Bucanus in his Com. places p. 105, 106. And their reasons seem strongest to me; of which see more in Sect. 4. But I intend not now to examine the reasons of both sides, because both sides do grant that which I desire; namely, that Adams rational soul was inspired into his body with a double life: and thence I infer, that in case he had but first tasted of the tree of the twofold life, his con­created relative life should never have been separated from the absolute life of his essential soul, but it should have been confirmed to him and to all his natu­ral posterity for ever, in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise, according to Gods relative justice in his Covenant of nature made with Adam.

Object. 1. N [...]shemah Caijm doth not certainly signifie the said twofold life of Adams soul in Gen. 2. 17. because the same words are used, after that Adam had lost his said concreated life. For after Moses had declared that all Beasts died in the flood, he addeth; and man also, in whose no­strils was the breath of the Spirit of N [...]shemah Caijm, the twofold life, Gen. 7. 22, 23.

Reply 23 I grant that N [...]shemah Caijm after the fall must have another interpretation of mans twofold life, then it had in the time of Adams innocency: and the ra­ther, Gen. 2. 7. with Gen. 7. 22, 23. because that twofold life is here joyned with Ruac [the Spirit.]

For first before Adam fell, God threatned only a twofold Spiritual death to his soul, without the abolishing of his personal being here in this world: but after the fall, and after he had threatned a bodily death for Original sin, and after Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was much in the earth, he threat­ned [Page 36] the death of all mens bodies by a flood, G [...]. 6. 5, 6. &c. except eight per­sons; and then the immortal soul must necessarily depart from the body to Hell: for all that died in the flood perished eternally, as both the Ebrew Do­ctors and Christian writers hold.

2. Both Scripture and reason shew, that absolute and indefinite threatnings must sometimes be restrained to such a s [...]nce as the context will bear; and in that respect the death of the twofold life of man in the time of the flood, must be restrained to such a bodily death, as was sutable to the drowning of the body in the flood: and thence it followes, that the twofold life that was taken from them by the flood, can be no other, but 1. That the sensitive life of the body was killed by drowning : and 2. that then it caused the immortal soul to depart from the body to an eternal death in Hell.

3. Though the dual number may be called plural, yet doubtless there is ever some special reason why the dual number is so often used in Scripture as it is, in a differing sort from the plural: of which dual number I have spoken more at large in my Treatise of Holy time, in pag. 19, &c. upon the word Gaarbaijm (the twofold Evening) and there I have shewed that it doth not signifie a con­fused mixture of any two or more things together, as when light and darkness are confounded in the twilight, (as some do erroneously interpret it) but that it doth signifie two several things connexed together, without confounding their d [...]stinct species: and therefore when that dual word is put for the natural E­vening, it doth signifie the conjunction of the latter half of the day, with the first half of the night, united together by the twilight. This observation of the dual number doth make the said sensitive life, and the rational life of those that perished in the flood, to be two distinct species, and yet connexed in their ope­rations.

4. Hence observe, that when God did first inspire the absolute or essential life of Adams soul into his body, it was to give the form to the matter: and 2. That when he did with the same Breath inspire a concreated life after his own image and likeness, (in moral perfections) he did conjoyn it as a distinct speci­es to his said essential life, as an accident to its subject, and therefore it was no true part of his essential life; neither did it flow from his nature essentially, as the faculties do from the soul: for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject that did support it. 3. Therefore it was but an appendix which the God of nature had conjoyned to his essential soul, even as he conjoyned an admirable beauty to Mose [...] face at his birth, Exod. 2. 2. which might have continued, or it might be lost, by his eating of some prohit­ed meat, which might have caused his beauty to consume as a moth, without the anihilating of his essential life, or of his personal dissolution.

5. Lest any one should stumble at this phrase, [The concreated life of Gods The double life of Adams soul explained; of which see more before in Re­ply 7. image] he may see it to be a necessary phrase, if he do but first consider the An­tithesis; namely, the kind of death that God did threaten in the Covenant of nature, which was no other but the deprivation of Adams said concereated life, which was conjoyned only as an adjunct to his essential life: and thence it fol­lowes by necessary consequence, that seeing the deprivation of his said concre­ated life is called death, the joyning of it as an adjunct to his essential soul must needs be called his concreated life.

[Page 37] 6. Lest any one should stumble at this phrase, [his relative life] he may also see it to be a necessary phrase, because his said concreated life did relate to the condition that God made with Adam in the Covenant of nature; namely, that in case he did but perform the condition of that Covenant on his part, by eating first of [Gnets Caijm] the Tree of the twofold life, then his said concreated life should have been continued as a perpetual adjunct to his essential life: and then 2. His essential life should have been confirmed in moral perfections, and it should have been continued to his body eternally, in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise, without any separation by a bodily death.

7. It is also further evident, that the life promised in the Covenant of na­ture was the confirmation of his said twofold life, because God himself did so expound it unto Adam presently after his fall in Gen. 3. 22, 24. For 1. Presently after his fall God did drive him by force (in sign of his anger) out of Parad se: and 2. He did then place at the East end of the Garden Cherubims, and the flame of a Sword, which turned it self every way, (in a warlike posture of an­ger) to keep the way of the Tree of the twofold life: and 3. Then God said in the hearing of Adam, The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Gen. 3. 22, 23. And now lest he should think (in his deluded apprehensions) to put forth his hand and take of the Tree of the twofold life, and eat and l [...]ve for ever, Gen. 3. 22. By this last ironical speech Jesus Christ did expound of what use the said Tree should have been to Adam, in case he had but first eaten thereof in the time of his innocency; namely, that he should thereby have lived for ever in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise; out of the which God did now in anger drive him, in vers. 24.

8. From hence it doth also follow, that the main end why Jesus Christ did now set a warlike defence about the said Tree of the twofold life, was to make Adam and all his natural posterity to know, that they were now for ever deprived of the means, whereby the condition that was required in the Covenant of nature Gen. 3. 22, 24. The first main end why Jesus Christ did set a warlike de­fence about the Tree of the twofold life, was to make Adam and all his natural po­sterity know, that the condi­tion that was required to be performed in the Covenant of nature, was now utterly void and null. might be performed, and consequently that the said Covenant is now made thereby utterly void: and that now they cannot be restored (to that N [...]shemah Caijm) to that twofold life of the soul wherein Adam was created: and 2. To make the said warlike defence of the Tree of the twofold life the more evident, Jesus Christ caused an Angel visibly to appear in Adams sight, with a flaming Sword in the air, for the greater terror unto Adam, that so he might not dare to approach unto that Tree, which formerly had been ordained and constituted by Gods arbitrary will and Covenant, to have been for the confirmation of his concreated life, and so to be as a perpetual adjunct to his essential life: and 3. It was to assure us, that the condition of the said Covenant of nature is for ever utterly abolished; and therefore it is not possible to be performed by man him­self, or by his surety, as the matter of his justification, as Mr. Norton doth most vainly argue: and 4. This warlike defence of that Tree, by an Angel with a fla­ming Sword, was to assure Adam and all his natural posterity, that God is for ever angry with them for the breach of that Covenant: and this anger of his is exemplified to us, by the like posture of his anger in other cases. 1. In the case of David: for out of the pride of his heart he numbred the people, as trusting to the arm of flesh: but the Lord did manifest his anger against him for this sin, by causing an Angel to appear in the air with a drawn sword [Page 38] in his sight, 2 Sam. 24. 16. 1 Chron. 21. 16. 2. He did in the same visible man­ner cause an Angel to appear with a drawn sword before the eyes of Balaam, to deter him from his intended inchantments against his people Israel, Numb. 22. 31.

9. From the premises it followes, that the Covenant of nature was ordain­ed The second main end why the Covenant of nature was to last no lo [...]g­er, then until the trial of A­dams obedience was made by his act of eat­ing, was be­cause else God cannot be said to have per­fectly finished the Heavens and the Earth, and all their hosts in six days; for all their hosts could not be finished in six days, un­less Adam did fall, and were also created a­new before the end of the sixth day. to last no longer then unt [...]l the trial of Adams obed [...]ence or d [...]sobedience was manifested by one transient act of eating only.

2. That this trial could not be deferred, but it must be expresly made in the very same sixth day in the which Adam was created, or else the whole creation could not have been finished in the same sixth day: for Moses doth tell us in Gen. 2. 1, 2. that the Heavens and the earth, and all their hosts were finished; that is to say, all the three Heavens and the Earth, and all their hosts were brought to a full and perfect end in six days, as the Ebrew word doth signifie; that is to say, some particulars of every several sort or kind of host, which appertained either unto the Heavens above, or unto the Earth beneath, were perfectly or compleatly finished before the end of the sixth day.

In my Book of the I [...]stitu [...]ion of the Sabbath, I have shewed that the word translated [in] in Gen. 2. 2. namely, in the seventh day, should be translated [Before] the seventh day; namely, that God had finished his work, which he had made before the seventh day. Now he deferred to make the woman unto the last of his works; he made them perfect with natural perfection in the be­ginning of the sixth day; but yet he made them to stand but in a mutable con­dition, because they might fall through Satans temptations, and that they might thereby lose their natural perfections. And then 3. By Gods declaration of the new Covenant of grace and reconciliation, in Gen. 3. 15. they were re-created and converted before the end of the sixth day; and that they were by Gods su­pernatural grace re-created: and this work of their re-creation was the per­fecting or the finishing act of Gods host of Saints here on Earth, before the end of the sixth day.

3. Thence it doth also follow, that the Covenant of nature must be trans­gressed, that so it might thereby be utterly evacuated or extinguished, and that so the new Covenant of grace and reconciliation might be declared to our fal­len Parents for their re-creation, by Gods supernatural grace before the end of the sixth day; that so they might 1. be made the first fruits of Gods Spiritual host of Saints here on Earth; and 2. That thereby they might be made capa­ble In all the natu­ral Creation Christ must be considered but as the second person in Trini­ty, but in the su­pernatural Cre­ation of our first Parents, he must be considered as Mediator be­fore the end of the sixth day. subjects of the heavenly host of triumphant Saints hereafter: for such re­created souls are st [...]led the host or army of Heaven, Dan. 8. 10, 13. and they are made to sit together in heavenly places, Ep. 2. 6. because they are by their regene­ration made capable subjects of Gods heavenly host; and they are of a heavenly calling, Ebr. 3. 1. And 3. It is in relation to these re-created souls that Christ is stiled, The Prince of the host, Dan. 8. 11. namely, of his Spiritual host here on Earth, and also of his heavenly host, as soon as their warfare here is finished; and in this respect also Christ is called, The Captain of the [...]ords host, Jos. 5. 14, 15. Ebr. 2. 10. and in general he is called, Jehovah of hosts, Psal. 24. 10. because he is the Lord of every host both in Heaven above, and in the Earth beneath before the end of the sixth day.

4. Take this for a remarkable consideration, that in all the natural creati­on Christ must be considered but as the second person in trinity only (and not [Page 39] as Mediator, during the time of the first five days, and in part of the sixth day; namely, so long as Adam stood in his natural purity on the sixth day. But about the middle of the sixth day Adam was deprived of his concreated life of moral perfections, and became dead in sin by his transgression of the Covenant of na­ture, and then the chiefest part of Gods natural creation was spoiled, had not Jesus Christ then stepped in as Mediator; for then he was declared to be the seed of the woman that should break this head-plot of Satan all to pieces; and by that declaration Adam and Eve were re-created before the end of the sixth day: and of this see more in Chap. 12. how Christ is called the Word, in Gen. 3. 8. by the Chaldee paraphrase, at the beginning.

In this sort, and after this manner all the works of creation, both visible and invisible, both earthly and spiritual were perfectly and compleatly finished be­fore the end of the sixth day, according to the true sence and meaning of Gen. 2. 1, 2.

5. Then God rested on the seventh day, Gen. 2. 2, 3. from all the works which he had made.

6. Then he blessed the seventh day with Spiritual ordinances, for the better edification of Adam in that faith in the promised seed which he had now re­ceived; and also for the conversion of his posterity.

Then God sanctisied the seventh day, and commanded Adam to set it apart from worldly employments: and for the better exercising of himself in Spiritu­al ordinances, as prayer, preaching, &c. as I have shewed it more at large in my Book of the institution of the Sabbath.

Reply 24. Sund [...]y eminent Divines do hold as I do; namely, that the Covenant of na­ture was utterly extinguished, as soon as Adam had transgressed it, and had re­ceived the threatned punishment of a Spiritual death.

1. Mr. Baxter In his Aphoris. pag. 79. Mr. Baxter and many others do affirm, that the Covenant of nature is be­come utterly null and void, ever since A­dam received the threatned punishment of a Spiritual death in sia. Perfect obedi­ence to the mo­ral Law of na­ture was not the condition of that life that was pre­mised in the Covenant of nature, but A­dams act in eating first of the Tree of the twofold life, was the only condition. saith, many do believe that the Covenant of works (for so he calls the Covenant of nature, though very improperly) is repealed to all the world : and that the Covenant of grace is only in force: I am of their be­lief, and I heartily wish that all Gods people would ponder the reasons of it, and then doubtless they will be of the same belief.

2. I do also perceive that Mr. Baxter did at the first cite the said assertion, on purpose to confute it; but since then I perceive that he hath found out such considerable reasons, as have confuted his former intended confutation: for in his Confession, in pag. 21. he saith thus: I approve of the Confession of the as­sembly of Divines, if I may but be allowed to make five or six exceptions (and saith he at N ^o 4.) in Chap. 19. and also in the larger Catechism (which I for­got to mention before) It is expressed that the promise of life upon fulfilling the Law in still in being. But (saith he) I understand it only of such a promise as is still on record in the Bible, as having been once in force: but now (saith he) I judge it to be no promise, but to be ceased, cessante materia, the thing made its condition [perfect obedience] being not only of moral, but of natural impos­sibility, as soon as mankind was once sinful; so that now God is not, nor can­not be obliged by that promise: for now it is no promise, though the preceptive part, and the poenal, or the comminatory part doth still remain: (but yet I adde, that the preceptive part of eating of the Tree of the twofold life doth not remain.)

[Page 40] 3. Mr. Baxter saith further in pag. 100. at Conclus. 5. I believe that the Law of works stands not now, as it did to Adam, as the sole Law in force, but that the promisory part of it is void, God being as we may say disobliged upon mans sin, and man being utterly uncapeable of being the subject to whom such a pro­mise can stand in force: and therefore (saith he) it is fitter to say that the Co­venant of works is null and void, because it is from the promisory part that the whole was so called a Covenant: and saith he in this point, I retract what I delivered in my Aphorisms.

4. Saith he in pag. 106. this title, The Covenant of works, I used in my A­phorisms, but upon better consideration I now think fit to forbear, and disclaim it, because the name is given from the promise of life in that Law; and that pro­mise is now ceased: and therefore it is not fit to denominate the Law, A Cove­nant, from that only part which is null: others (saith he) stand stiffe for what in tea [...]ms I fi [...]st asserted; viz. for the continuation of the whole Covenant, promise and all: but tis clear (saith he) that when man did first break the Co­venant, God was disobliged, and man was quite uncapable of having such a promise made unto him (after his fall) for when he was once a finner, it was not only impossible that he should be no sinner (as it was impossible for him to keep the Law for the future) but it was naturally impossible, as being a meer con­tradiction. To feign a promise of God to be in force, that will save men, on condition they have no sin, when they have all sin already, is absurd: yet I say not that God abrogated his promise by making a better; but that man nul­led it by his Covenant breaking, so making the matter impossible, and so it ceas­ed cessante materia, vel subjecti capacitate. Thus far from Mr. Baxter.

1. As touching the utter nulling of the Covenant of nature upon Adams transgression in eating the forbidden fruit, I do fully agree with him.

2. But yet touching the thing made its condition I disagree: for he makes it to be Adams obedience to the moral Law of his nature: but as yet I could ne­ver see it proved by any Scripture that is rightly expounded. Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it by Lev. 18. 4, 5. Eze. 20. 11. Gal. 3. 10, &c. But I have shewed that the doing of the Law in all these Scriptures is not meant of Adams natural doing it in the time of his innocency, as the condition of the promised life : but the doing of the Law that is required in these Scriptures, is meant of such If the Covenant of nature had been made in relation to the moral Law of nature, then the same threatning must have been continued against the mo­ral Law of Christs humane nature, which is dangerous to be affirmed. a doing only, as is required in the Covenant of grace; namely, of doing it all by faith in Christ, as I have shewed it more at large elsewhere.

3. In case the Covenant of nature had been made in relation to the moral Law of nature, then doubtless the threatning would have been continued even against the humane nature of Christ. But saith Mr. Rutherford on the Cove­nant, pag. 25. you cannot shew me in all the old Testament any poenal Law of active obebience, as poenal imposed upon the man Christ: where is is written, If the man Christ sin, he shall eternally dye: I tremble, saith he, at such expres­sions. The like must be affirmed of Adam, for he was created after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections; so that he could not will to sin against any branch of the moral Law of his nature, until he had first lost the rectitude of his nature, by sinning against the arbitrary Law of the Covenant of na­ture, by his transient act of eating of the forbidden fruit: then he was in­stantly deprived of Gods concreated image of moral perfections, and then he [Page 41] could do nothing else but sin against every branch of that moral Law; then the thoughts and imaginations of his heart were evil and only evil all the day long, Gen. 6. 5. But tis no less then horrible blasphemy to affirm that the humane nature of Christ was obliged under the same Covenant of nature: I grant he was born under the moral Law of nature, as much as Adam was, but he was not put under the same Covenant of nature that Adam was, because he was none of his natural generation, but was conceived by the Holy Ghost, that so he might be put under the positive Law of Mediatorship, but yet without the addi­tion of any threatning.

2. Mr. Woodbridge saith, if God by vertue of that Covenant made with In his Method, pag. 251, 252. 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 overthrow the very foundations of faith; and to this ef­fect also he speaketh in pag. 252. This assertion of his doth make null the Co­venant made with Adam, and it doth point blank overthrow Mr. Nortons first foundation proposition, and all the rest of his Book, because it is built upon that false foundation.

3. Mr. Lawson doth speak often to the same purpose. In his Body of Divinity, pag. 1, &c.

1. Saith he, when man transgressed the Law given in Creation, then the first government was altered and modered anew: and thereupon the laws and judgements, and the manner of administration were new, and different from the former: God acquires a new power, requires a new obedience, and orders man to eternal rewards another way.

2. Saith he in pag. 16. This government is twofold; the first of justice, the second of mercy; of justice in the first Adam, of mercy in the second.

3. Saith he in pag. 53. Gods special government of man is twofold: 1. That wherein God exercised his power [...]cquired by Creation. 2. That wherein he exercised his power acquired by redemption: and Mr. Baxter doth give his as­sent to this assertion, as a most clear truth, in his answer to Crandon, pag. 26. God saith he hath three Kingdoms in specie over mankind, whereof the first two are here on Earth, and the third in Heaven. The first, saith he, was the King­dom of God over perfect man, and is never called the Kingdom of the Son, or of the Mediator, or Redeemer: this endured but till the fall of man. The second is the Kingdom of the Son, or of the Redeemer, which is distinguished from the rest by the foundation right (general redemption) by its ends, laws, state of the subjects, &c. The work and end of this Kingdom is to effect mans cure and re­covery. 3. Saith he, when this is finished, the Son shall deliver up his King­dom to his Father, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 27. of the true sence of which Scripture see more in him.

4. Saith he in pag. 70. at N ^o 2. In the sentence-passed upon the Devil, Gen. 3. 15. Christ was promised, and by that promise the government of mankind was al­tered, and God did new model his Kingdom; for thereupon followed a new constitution, new laws, and new judgement did proceed afterwards in a new manner.

5. Saith he, by this promise the Covenant of works was made void, and that [Page 42] Law, as promising life only upon condition of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, without any promise of pardon of any the least sin, was repealed; and the positive Law of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil did cease.

6. Saith he, though the Law of works was repealed, yet the sentence pas­sed upon man; for the sin he committed against the Law of works, stands still in force, and shall in part continue to the resurrection.

7. Though the Law of works, as a condition and only condition of life be repealed, yet the pure morals continue in force to bind man to obedience, or punishment in general, but not to obedience perfect as the condition of life, nor yet to punishment as no ways removeable. To argue, that because the matter of the moral Laws continue in precepts and prohibitions, therefore the Law of works continues, is vain, for it may continue in another manner, and to another [...]nd, and both the end and manner far different.

8. Saith he, to say that man is under the Law of works, as Adam was at first, until he be in Christ, is very false: It is true he is under the execution of that sentence, which passed upon man for his sin, against the Law both moral and positive given to Adam: and he cannot pass from death to life, from the state of damnation to the state of salvation, till he be in Christ by a true and lively faith; and when we are in Christ, we are not wholly freed from the sentence, because it continues partly in force until the resurrection.

9. Saith he in pag. 82. when the first government did determine, the second did begin: for after the fall of two of Gods most noble creatures, there follow­ed a great alteration in the world; and such, that if God had followed strictly the rules of his former government, all mankind must needs have perished: but Gods mercy could not suffer this; therefore his divine wisdom continueth a way how to recover fallen man, and began to govern him according to such rules, as he might attain eternal salvation.

10. Saith he in pag. 83. In this respect there must needs be a great diffe­rence between the former and this latter g [...]ernment : for in the former the Governor was God, Creator by the [Word] not incarnate and made flesh: but in this latter, he is not only Creator, but Redeemer, By the Word made Flesh. 2. The subject of this latter; is not man holy, righteous, innocent, as he was created; but sinful, guilty, and miserable in Adam fallen. 3. The Laws thereof do not binde man as the former did, to perfect and perpetual obedience, as the Here the Read­er may see that Mr. Nortons first foundation proposition, up­on which his whole Book is builded, is op­posed by Mr. Lawson; espe­cially in the point of doing the Law in a way of works. condition of life, but to faith in the Redeemer.

This government is the act of divine providence, whereby he ordereth sinful man, redeemed by faith in Christ Redeemer unto salvation, or upon his unbe­lief unto eternal death unavoidable, John 3. 16, 18, 36, &c.

11. Saith he in pag. 83. Whereas many tell us that the former government continues, that the Laws are still the same, that God as Rector by substitution transfered the punishment merited by transgression of the Law, upon Christ: and for and in consideration of satisfaction made by him, remits sin; and that this is nothing else but a relaxation, or interpretation of the former Law: they are much mistaken, and reach not the truth in this particular. And he doth make this further evident in pag. 103. where propitiation is ascribed, not to the active, but to the passive obedience of Christ.

12. Saith he in pag. 72. Another penalty on Adam was, that he conceived [Page 43] and found himself cast out of Gods favour : and this seems to be signified by Gods casting him out of Paradise, denying him access to the Tree of life: for the passage into that happy place was guarded by Angels with a fiery sword (Gen. 3. 24.) signifying, that s [...]eing man had sinned and polluted himself, there was no possibility of life by the Law of works; and so saith Mr. Ed. Holyoke in his Do­ctrine of life, pag. 23. Gods purpose was not to bring fallen man to life, by the ruines of any natural abilities: there was a barre put in Gen. 3. 24. that we should not think of any hope in that.

13. Saith he in pag. 146. To think that the promises, threats, and the obliga­tion of the Law of works do continue under the Gospel, or remain at any time in the Kingdom of God Redeemer, is an error, and a great mistake.

It is one thing to bind unto perfect obedience, another thing to bind unto per­fect obedience, as the condition of life. This latter was essential to the moral Law, as given at first (to Adam) and in that respect it is truly and properly said, that the Law of works is abrogated.

Ibidem saith he, in this respect it is not proper, nay it is not true to say, that God in the moral Law binds man unto perfect and perpetual obedience; for so it doth not: he binds to perfect and perpetual obedience (which man nei­ther doth, nor can perform) or to punishment by his Saviour, and upon faith in him removeable, and not to obedience and punishment too.

14. Saith he in pag. 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: all this (saith he) is evident from the Books of Moses and the Prophets, which speak to men as sinful, promise Christ, forbid impeni­tency, preach and urge repentance, and make all penalties removeable upon that condition, which could not have been done, if sin and penalties had been look­ed upon according to the Law of works.

It is in vain therefore to argue that, because as the Law of works command­ed love to God, love to our neighbor, did forbid idolatry, murther, theft, &c. did threaten death and punishment for these sins : so the Gospel commands the same duties, forbids the very same things, threatneth the same penalties, and promiseth life, that therefore the Law of works continueth, especially the moral Law; for the precepts, prohibitions, promises, and threats of the Law, and of the Law of grace come under different notions: as for 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. [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 hast sinned, and art wicked, yet forsake thy wicked way, and return unto the Lord, against whom thou bast sinned: the Law of works saith, Thou hast sinned, and must die; I have no promise of life or pardon for thee: but the Law of grace saith, Though thou hast by thy sia deserved to die, yet upon condition of repentance and return thou shalt be pardoned, and live.

I touch the more often upon this point (saith he) and here stand the more largely upon it, because some will take no notice of it; others, who are sufficient­ly informed, are hardly perswaded of this difference, and of the abrogation of the Law of works, which to a guilty person denies all possibility of salvation.

[Page 44] 15. Saith he, no man ought to preach the Law of works unto sinful man, as now in force; for that makes sin unpardonable, and it is the high way to cause despair: he indeed that will only threaten death and punishment, according to the Law of works, and silence the promise of the Gospel, is a legal Preacher indeed, and can be no faithful servant of Christ in this world.

Thus far out of Mr. Lawsons Body of Divinity.

And as touching the utter nulling of the Covenant of nature, which he calls the government of Gods creatures, I do fully agree with him: but yet I differ from him in certain particulars, especially in the matter of the condition of the Covenant of nature (which he doth call the Law of works, though very much amiss, because it is a misleading title) he makes the matter of the Covenant of nature to relate to Adams obedience to the moral Law of his nature; but I make it to be only in relation to his obedience to the arbitrary Law and Covenant, by one single act of eating only, as I have before explained my meaning.

4. I have cited Mr. Wotton, and Mr. Clendon also in Chap. 4. who do fully concur with me touching the arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature; and they deny as I do, that the Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature.

SECT. IV.

SHewing that divers Orthodox writers do affirm, that the life promised in the Covenant of nature was no other but the confirmation of Adams con­created life, after the image of God in moral perfections, in the sweet enjoy­ments of an earthly Paradise. De Triplici Foedere Thesis 9. N ^o. 5 [...]. 1

1. Learned Camero saith, that in the Covenant of nature an eternal and bles­sed life is promised, but yet an animal life to be lived in, in Paradise, Gen. 2. 8. 9.

[Page 45] 2. Saith he in Thesis 19. and in Thesis 80. We do therefore define a heaven­ly l [...]fe to be that, in which Christ now liveth in the Heavens, which is there­fore called heavenly, because the first Author of it is the heavenly Man: and on the other hand we call that an animal life, in which Adam lived be­fore his fall in Paradise, which was to be perpetuated according to the perpe­tuating of his obedience, and so it would have redounded to all his posterity.

2. Gro [...]ius in his Appendix to sundry points controverted, saith in pag. 104. Taken out of De veritate Religionis Christianae. The Apostle Paul opposing the earthly Adam to the Spiritual, considered Adam as he was first created, (and not as fallen) whence it followes, that we have another nature from Christ, then we should have had, if Adam had persisted in his primitive condition, and begotten his like: but (saith he) a caelestial life was not promised him, but a terrestial only, as the Scripture plainly speaks, (namely, 1 Cor. 15. 44. to 49.) and saith he, Cameron taught thus in France; Spirituality in 1 Cor. 15. 44. is opposed to animality: for a Spiritual bo­dy that is glori­fied, is support­ed immediately without any corporal means; but in Paradise Adams animal body was to be supported by corporal means. and saith he, I do not herein digress from the received sentence of the Church.

3. Mr. Boul [...]on in his Bounds of Christian freedom, saith in pag. 173. That in the Covenant of nature God required perfect obedience to all his Command­ments, with a promise of a blessed life in Paradise, if he obeyed. In this asserti­on he doth approve of Camerons judgement, and for that cause among others he hath printed Camerons Book with his own.

2. Take notice that he doth call the Covenant made with Adam, The Cove­ntnt of nature, as Cameron did afore; and as our large Annot. doth in Jer. 31. 32. and as many late writers do, as may be seen in some of the following Ag­thors.

4. Learned Mr. Wotton (so stiled by sundry eminent late writers) saith thus to Hemingius; I deny the proposition, because it cannot be proved by Scripture that there was any Covenant for eternal life (in Heaven) betwixt God and A­dam, in regard either of his habitual justice, which was bestowed on him in his Creation, or of his actual obedience in keeping the Law. We find indeed ( Wotton de Recons. pec. par. 2. l. 1. c. 7. saith he) a threatning of death (and that eternal) in Gen. 2. 17. but we may not from thence conclude, that if he had not eaten, he should have been translated to Heaven: only this followes, that he should have enjoyed that immortal life, which then he had: and that favour and familiarity with God, in which he li­ved with all delight and comfort.

2. Saith he, in John, pag. 410. Put case our first parents had continued in obe­dience to God their Creator, according to their allegiance and duty; what could they have looked for, but either a confirmation of that estate which then they enjoyed, or at the most the reward of their service, the wages for their work? they could never have attained to this dignity, to be the sons of God by adoption: which we have only by Christ as our right to Heaven.

5. Mr. Rutherford on the Covenant, pag. 1. saith, the Apostle in 1 Cor. 15. 47. doth make the condition of the first Adam (before his fall) to be animal and earthly; and that of the second Adam to be spiritual and heavenly: (and to this sence doth P. Martyr expound this verse, cited before at Reply 10.)

2. Saith he in pag. 2. The flower and choicest of Adams Paradise estate is an earthly condition; as it is evident, 1. By his eating, Gen. 2. 9, 16. 2. By his sleeping, vers. 21. 3. By his being placed in a Garden to dress it, vers. 8, 16, 17. 4. By his marriage, vers. 23, 24. 5. By his Lordship over Birds, Beasts, and [Page 46] Fishes, Gen. 1. 28. But (saith he) In the second Adam we were glorified with a life of more worth.

3. Saith he in pag. 5. Adam was predestinated to life through Jesus Christ; but yet not as a publick person representing all his sons; but as a single person, as Abraham and Jacob, &c. therefore we are predestinated to life eternal, Not in him, but in Christ, Rom. 8. 29, 30.

(And from hence I do also infer, that none are predestinated or justified from sin, or adopted to the heavenly Paradise, for their performance of the conditi­on of the first Covenant of nature, namely, not for their eating of the Tree of life in Adam their publick head, neither could Christ become our surety to fulfil the condition of that Covenant for us, because he was none of Adams natural generation, with whom only that Covenant was made.)

4. Mr. Rutherford doth propound this Query, in Chap. 9. pag. 49. What life was it that was promised in the Covenant of works? his answer is; not a life in Christ, and the fruit of the merit of blood, as our life is in the new Covenant, John 3. 16. But tis a Law life (happily a communion in glory) But (saith he) the life he lived; and the creatures for his service seems not to belong to the life of glory: and saith he in pag. 14. The conditional decree of Adams life, if he should do the Law (of nature) was not predestination to eternal glory.

5. Saith he in pag. 20. Tis not written in the heart of man by nature, that God should promise eternal life to man, upon condition of obedience: for it were nothing against justice or bounty, or any attribute of God, not to reward his creature which is obliged to serve him: nor can the promise as touching such a Covenant be written in his heart, pag. 22. And unto this I adde (that by the like reason) neither can the threatning of death in Gen. 2. 17. be written in Adams heart for his eating of the forbidden Tree.

6. Mr. George Walker in his Doctrine of the Sabbath, pag. 16. saith, The Co­venant of life being sealed, by Adams eating of that Tree (which was the seal of the Covenant, as it appears by Gods speech in Gen. 3. 22.) man had been confirmed in that natural life and estate wherein God had created him, and the Devil could have had no power, either to seduce him, or to prevail by his tem­ptations.

2. Saith he in pag. 28. I confess and believe, that man by his perfect obedi­ence performed to God in his own person, according to the first Covenant of works, might have continued in that earthly life, and natural happiness, where­in he was created: but that he had any supernatural or spiritual power given him before the promise of Christ, whereby he was fitted for heavenly happi­ness; or that any such happiness was promised him in the first Covenant, or any grace (of justification, &c.) tending thereunto, I cannot be perswaded; and then he gives divers reasons for the confirming of his said assertion.

3. Saith he in pag. 34. If the observation of the weekly Sabbath were but a dictate of nature written in mans heart in the Creation, then were the chief end and aim of it no more but an earthly felicity, and the fruition of a natural life in an earthly Paradise: and to this sence he doth also reason in pag. 10.

4. Saith he in pag. 39. Though God did create man perfect after his own image, yet I do not read that this image did comprehend any more in it, but natural gifts and endowments only: and he speaketh much more to this effect in pag. 32, 33, 37.

[Page 47] 7. Mr. Weames in h [...]s Portraiture, pag. 251. doth confidently affirm, that Adams relative life to the promise was natural only, and not supernatural: his words I have in part cited before, at Reply 22. ult. and Doctor Ames in Medul, l. 1. c. 8. Sect 70. doth make Gods image in Adam to be no more but natural endowments; and so doth Mr. Burg [...]s in Vindicae legis, pag. 19, 20. and many others.

8. Mr. Woodbridge saith in his Method, pag. 342. That Adams obedience to keep the Law, was not of grace, but ut naturae debita, as due to his nature out of the common goodness, which furnished every Creature in its kinde, with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created: but (saith he) to quicken us when we are dead, and to restore lost abilities; yea, to vegitate and maintain them against contrary principles, either of inclinations from within, or oppo­sitions from without, is such special grace as Adam in that estate received not.

2. Saith he in pag. 36. If Adam had continued righteous, he might well have propagated life to his children, but not salvation, because they had never been in danger of death. This assertion doth by necessary consequence prove that Adam in his innocency should not have had any other life, then a perfect natu­ral life for ever in Paradise only.

9. The Book called, The manifold wisdom of God, (which some say was Mr. George Walkers.) doth often call the Covenant made with Adam, The Cove­nant of nature, as in pag. 50, 93, &c.

2. The said Author saith in pag. 51. That the sign and seal which God gave to man for the confirmation of this Covenant, was the Tree of life, which was to man a Sacrament: (and so Bernard doth also call it a Sacramental Tree) and a pledge of eternal life on Earth, and of all blessings needful to keep man in life: and the receiving of this seal was the eating of the Tree of life: and the end of this Covenant was the upholding of the Creation, and all Creatures in their perpetual natural estate, for the benefit of man continually: this was the first Covenant that God made with man.

3. Saith he in pag. 89. The Seal of the first Covenant was the Tree of life, which if Adam had received by eating thereof in the state of innocency, before Adam in his innocency might not kill and eat the flesh of any Creatures: but being fallen he hath now liber­ty through Christs sacri­fice to kill for typical sacrifi­ces, and so co­sequently to kill and to eat flesh at other times also. his fall, he had certainly been established in that estate for ever, and could not have been seduced and supplanted by Satan, (as some learned men do think) and as Gods own words do seem to imply, in Gen. 3. 22.

4. Saith he in pag. 93. The promises of God in the Covenant of nature, were only natural life and earthly happiness, with all blessings necessary there­unto.

5. Saith he in pag. 41. Others derive the word Berith of [...] which sig­nifies to eat and refresh ones self with meat: and saith he, there is some reasons thereof, because the old Covenant of God made with man in the Creation, was a Covenant wherein the Condition or Law was about eating: and so also in the solemn making and sealing of the Covenant of grace in Christ the blessed seed; the publick ceremony was the slaying and sacrificing of beasts, and eating some part of them, after the fat and choice pieces were offered and burnt on the Altar: for by vertue of that Covenant God gave man leave to eat the flesh of beasts, which he might not do in the state of innocency, Gen. 1. 29, and so also [Page 48] in the solemn Covenants that were made betwixt men, the parties were wont to eat together, as it appears by Gen. 26. 30. and Gen. 31 54. And to this sence doth Mr. Walker speak in his Doctrine of the Sabbath, pag. 29. namely, that Adam had power given him in the state of innocency, to rule over all Cattel and all li­ving Creatures, only to order them and command them for his delight and pleasure: but (saith he) in Christ he had power given him to kill, and to sa­crifice, and to eat them, and to use them for his profit.

10. Mr. Burroughes in his Gospel Conversation, pag. 43. saith, we do not read of Gods promising Adam to l [...]ve in Heaven, if he had obeyed; but he should have continued in Paradise, and so have lived a natural l [...]fe, but yet continued eternally, God would have upheld that natural life of his. This is all we read that ever God promised unto Adam.

2. Saith he the first Adam was natural, and the second Spiritual; the first of the Earth earthly, the second the Lord from Heaven. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 15. 47. speaks of Adam in innocency, as the common head of all mankind, that he was of Earth earthy: but saith the Apostle in way of distinction, The 1 Cor. 15. 47. second Adam was the Lord from Heaven, i.e. he brings all heavenly glory.

3. Saith he, though Adam had stood, yet we never read of any heavenly glory that ever he or his posterity should have had.

4. Saith he in pag. 44. We have better promises then ever Adam had, we have promises of heavenly glory that he had not.

11. Austin doth expound 1 Cor. 15. 42. to 49. and in conclusion he saith thus; we may not think that our bodies at the resurrection shall be such as A­dams I [...] the City of God, l. 13. c. 23 was in his creation, for that was but a natural body. But at the resurre­ction (our bodies) shall be Spiritual bodies: and so saith he in Chap. 20. If we may call the Spirit serving the flesh carnal, then we may in like sort call the flesh serving the Spirit spiritual; not because it shall be turned into the Spirit, as some think from 1 Cor. 15. 44. but therefore it is called a Spiritual body, be­cause it shall serve the Spirit in all wonderful and ready obeysance, to the fulfil­ling of the most secure will of indissoluble immortality.

12. Mr. Bale on the Covenant saith in pag. 6. God provided and promised to Adam in innocency an eternal happiness, In the present enjoyments.

2. Saith he in pag. 10. Upon supposition of Adams persisting in the state of obedience, to say that God would have translated him to the state of glory, is more then any just ground will warrant, because in Scripture there is no such promise. And if we must not presume above what is written, we may say that Adam should have continued in that blessed estate of nature, in which he was created: but as for his translation after some number of years spent on Earth, we read not.

3. Saith he in pag. 25. The creation of man, and the integrity of the hu­mane nature, is the foundation of the former Covenant; but the redemption of man by Christ is the foundation of the Covenant of grace.

4. Saith he, The Covenant of nature promised life, But not righteousness; (namely, not justification) nor repentance, nor forgiveness of any the least ini­quity.

5. Saith he in pag. 25. In the Covenant of nature, eternal life, and that most blessed is promised; but yet only animal, and to be enjoyed in Paradise, or a [Page 49] continuance in that good estate wherein he was set at first of the rich bounty of God: but in the Covenant of grace, translation out of ignomy and death, to an eternal happiness and glory in heaven, is promised.

6. Saith he, [...]n pag. 73. The first breaking forth of this gracious and free promise and Covenant, was immediately upon the fall, Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 3. 15.

23. Mr. Barter saith in his Aphorismes, pag. 15. the like promise was only the cont [...]nuance of that estate that Adam was then in, in Paradise.

2. Saith he, in pag. 136. Where doth the Scripture talk of Adams meriting any more then the continuance of that happiness which then he had: and saith he [...]n his answer to Mr. Ayre, in pag. 34. Adam was not endowed with the image of God, nor made Lord of the inferior Creatures, nor placed in a Pa­radise, nor had the promise of immortality and felicity, if he sinned not upon the procurement of the merits of Christ.

3. Saith he, in pag. 31. Calvin and many more Interpreters think, that if Adam had not fallen, he should after a season have been translated to Heaven without death (and so saith Bucanus in Com. pl. p. 111.) as Enoch and Elias: but saith he, I know no Scripture that tells us so much.

And therefore I pray the Reader to take special notice, that Mr. Watson in his Christian Charter doth prove by several pregnant Arguments in pag. 176, No humane body is yet in Hea­ven, but the bo­dy of Christ on­ly. &c. that no other mans body is yet in Heaven, but the body of Christ only. And 2. Take notice from his Arguments, that Mr. Nortons comparison, fetched from the entring of Enoch and Elias body into Heaven, in pag. 32. is but a meer fiction of his own brain.

14. Mr. Wilson in his Christian Dictionary doth expound the Tree of life, in G. n. 2. 9. of that happy life that Adam received by Gods Creation, wherein he was to be confirmed by eating of the Tree of life, which was appointed to be a Sacrament thereof.

15. Mr. Bro. saith in Ecclesiastes p. 1. The holy Trinity consisteth for the ma­king of man in justice and plain holiness, and maketh his body of the Earth, that all things might serve his use; the Stars, the Elements, the Planets, and all live things; and God doth breath into him a soul immortal, and full of life, which might have kept the body always alive, and sheweth unto Angels mans wisdom, in that he nameth all Beasts with tearms defining their natures; and maketh a woman out of his side, and giveth them dominion over the Earth, and giveth his Angels charge over them to attend them, and to keep them; but one part of them misliketh the charge, and by that rebellion extinguish their own light, and lose their glory, and find misery irrecoverable, and seek leave to try man, whether he can be deceived, to cast off the obedience of God, and prevaileth; and bringeth them To death of the soul, and to the loss of that (concreated) Light, that would have kept the body alive forever: in these last words he doth imitate the words of the Ebrew Doctors next cited.

16. The ancient Ebrew Doctors say; after the opinion of our Rabbins of blessed memory; if Adam had not sinned he had never died, but the breath which he was inspired with, of the most high blessed God, should have given him life for ever, and the good will of God which he had in the time of his creation, had cleaved unto him continually, and had kept him alive for ever: this is recorded by Rab. Menachem, as the common opinion of the more an­cient Rabbins: see Ains. in Gen. 2. 17.

[Page 50] 17. Doctor Gouge saith in Ebr. 8. 8. Sect. 42. If Adam had eaten of the Free of life, before he eat of the other Tree, he should for ever have been esta­blished.

2. Saith he in Sect. 45. The good promised in the Covenant of grace is a greater degree of happiness, and a far more glorious estate, then that which was promised by the first Covenant.

18. Mr. Hotchkis saith in his Exercitation, pag. 83. Christ by his satisfaction d [...]d procure for believers an eternal inheritance in Heaven, which for degree is commonly thought to be a greater felicity, then Adam if he had stood should have attained to.

19. Doctor Alle, B. B. of Exeter, saith in his Poor mans Library, pag. 145. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil is so called, as the Schoolmen and other l [...]te writers say [Ab eventu] of that which followed the eating thereof; even as the Tree of life is therefore called the Tree of life [Ab effectu] For as some Divines write, the fruit of this Tree should (by vertue of Gods free Covenant) have conserved the integrity of mans health, and the radical moisture, that he should never be stricken with age, with wrinkles, with hoare hairs, nor with any corruption, but should have remained in perpetual young age: And Auslin saith thus in the City of God, l. 14. c. 17. Their eyes were opened to see between the good they had lost, and the evil they had incurred, Gen. 2. 7. and thereupon the Tree was called, The Tree of knowledge of good and evil: for then they knew they were made naked of that grace, which (at first) made their bodily naked­ness innocent.

20. Doctor Willes in Dan. 9. p. 24. saith, we are in Christ restored to a more excellent state, then we lost in Adam, which was but terrene and mutable; but by Christ we receive a heavenly, everlasting, and immutable Kingdom.

2. Saith he in Rom. 5. Quest. 36. In Christ we are restored to a more excel­lent estate, then we lost in Adam; for in Adam we are deprived of a temporal Paradise, but in Christ we are restored to a heavenly: in Adam we are exclu­ded from eating of the material Tree of life, but in Christ we feed of the bread of Heaven, which giveth eternal life, &c.

21. Mr. Jo. Smith of Clavering saith in his Exposition of the Creed, p. 243. A Christians estate is better then Adams was in the time of his innocency; for he had but an earthly Paradise, but a Christian shall have a heavenly Paradise.

2. Saith he in pag 450. We have a better estate by Christ, and greater ho­nour then ever we lost by Adam. For 1. We lost by Adam but an earthly Pa­radise, but by Christ we get Heaven. 2. Adam was Lord only of the Earth, but we have Heaven by Christ.

3. He had it but on his good behaviour, but we have Heaven without con­dition.

4. He lived among Beasts and Birds, but we shall live among Angels.

5. He had the presence of God but by fits, but we shall enjoy it continually.

6. When he had all things, he had need of a (mutual) helper, but God [...]hall be all in all to us.

7. Saith he in pag. 630. Our knowledge in Heaven shall be more perfect, then ever Adams was in the time of his innocency. Adam knew his wise as soon as she was brought to him, though he never saw her before, therefore shall we [Page 51] much more know one another in Heaven; so that our knowledge shall then be more perfect, then Adams was in the time of his innocency: and we shall rise with the Tame bodies we lived in here. Peter knew Moses and Elias on the Mount, although they were dead many thousand years before. If he knew them when he had but a taste of glory, much more shall we when we shall have fulness of glory: therefore our estate in Christ is better then that we lost in Adam.

22. Mr. Burges saith in Vinditiae legis, p. 139. Adam was so immortal, as that there was a possibility of mortality: but tis not so with those that are glo­rified.

2. Saith he, Adam was so immortal, that he had a natural body which did need nourishment, but tis not so with those that are made happy (in Heaven.)

3. Saith he, Adam in his first estate was naturally immortal; for if death had been natural, God had been the author of death, and man would not have abhor'd it.

4. Saith he in his former page, as we are in a Mediator, we are in a better and surer condition, then the Angels or Adam was: and I will adde this reason, because Adam had but natural helps, but in a Mediator we have supernatural helps to the attaining of the heavenly inheritance. Adams righteousness was but natural, but the righteousness we have by Christ, is from Gods supernatu­ral grace, the pardon of sin to believing sinners, and the receiving them into the adoption of sons to the heavenly inheritance : therefore our estate by Christ is better then that we lost in Adam.

23. Doctor Sybes in his 19 Sermons on Phil. 3. 21. saith in pag. 48. This is certain we are renewed not to the image of the first Adam, but to the image of the second Adam: we are conformed in soul to the image of Christ in holiness and righteousness; so likewise we shall be conformable in body to Christs bo­dy: the glorious body of Christ is the pattern of this transmutation, and change at the day of resurrection; and in pag. 59. the second life shall be better then the first, our bodies shall be better then in the first Creation, they shall be glo­rious bodies like Christs.

24. Mr. Norton himself doth in part agree with the said Authors: for thus he saith in pag. 261. Though man by reconciliation be restored into a better estate, yet not into the same estate formally, wherein he was before the fall: for then though he was A Son, Luke 3. 38. and in a state of favour with God, yet he was not just, nor yet his condition immutable.

Reply 24 I would gladly reconcile his words to the forecited Authors, but I fear I am deprived of my expectation, because he saith that Adam was not just, until he was reconciled after his fall. I grant that he was not made supernaturally just, so as to make him a capable subject of the heavenly inheritance, until after his fall and conversion: but yet I say also, that he was naturally just, because he was created after Gods image and likeness in moral perfections; and therefore he was in that respect perfectly just by nature, and made thereby a capable subject of an everlasting life in an earthly Paradise; of which I have spoken more at large in Chap. 5. and Chap. 6.

2. I cannot but wonder why Mr. Norton doth cite Luke 3. 38. to prove that Luke 3, 23. 38. Adam is there called the Son of God, seeing the word Son▪ in all that long ge­nealogie is applyed only to the humane nature of Christ, even from vers. 23. [Page 52] which should (saith Bro.) be thus translated; Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, [as [...]t was supposed] the son of Eli, the so [...] of Matthat, &c. These words, As it was supposed, (saith he) should not be set before, but after Joseph: and thence it followes, that Luke doth not set down Josephs genealogie; for Joseph was not the son of Eli, (as most transla­tions do carry the words) but he was the son of Jacob, as Matthew doth place him in his genealogie, Ma [...]th. 1. 16. therefore Luke doth make Christ to be the immediate son of Mary, of Eli, of Mattha [...], and so all along up to Adam: and thence it followes, that not Adam but Christ is called the Son of God, in Luke. 3. 38. because his humane nature was conceived in the womb of the Vir­gin Mary by the Holy Ghost: and in this manner doth Sp [...]eds genealogie place the word Son all along up to Adam; and so doth Wo [...]ton in Joh. p. 401. and Doctor Gouge in Ebr. 2. Sect. 162. By the threat­ning of the Co­venant of na­ture, Adams twofold Spiri­tual death should have been perpe [...]ua­t [...]d in this world only, without any bo­dily death, in case Adams af­ter sinning a­gainst the moral Law of his na­ture had not provoked Gods justice to inflict a bodily death: in which pu­nishment the elect are distin­guished from the reprobates by their saith in Christ. There are five main differen­ces between the Covenant of na­ture and the Covenant of grace.

3. Saith Bro. in Re [...]. 20. 1. The Angels are called the Sons of God, but never any one in particular; and so the faithful are called the Sons of God, but no particular man: but the Son eternal, in whom they that trust are happy, Psal. 2. 13. with Luke 3. 38. therefore Adam is not called in particular the Son of God. But this reply is intended for no more, but only for a Parenthesis, for the rectifying of h [...]s m [...]sinterpretation of Luke 3. 38.

Conclusion from the premises.

1. Hence it followes, that sundry Christian writers and Ebrew Doctors do agree, that the kinde of l [...]fe that was promised in the Covenant of nature, was no other but the confirmation of Adams concreated life, after the image of God in moral perfections; which concreated life he inspired as an adjunct to the essential life of his immortal soul, for his sinless conversation in the sweet contents of an earthly Paradise for ever.

2. Hence also it followes by necessary consequence, that the death that was threatned in opposition thereto, can be no other but a double kinde of Spiritual death to be continued in this world only, without any bodily death, for any thing that was revealed to the contrary in the Covenant of nature. God reserved the punishment of a bodily death in his own secret minde for a time; namely, until he had first declared the new Covenant of grace and reconciliation, in Gen. 3. 15, but then he did presently after threaten a bodily death; namely, in v. 19. not for Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, but as a new punishment for his after sinning quality; namely, for his Original sin against every branch of the moral Law of nature.

3. From the premises it followes, that Mr. Norton is much mistaken, in af­fi [...]ming that the Covenant of grace and reconciliation hath its dependance on the Covenant of nature: 1. In relation to Christs satisfaction, and 2. In re­lation to a sinners justification. Seeing I have proved that the Covenant of na­ture was totally extinguished, before ever the Covenant of reconciliation was declared; and consequently that it cannot have any likeness or agreement to the Covenant of nature, neither in the Author of it, nor in the subjects, nor in the conditions to be performed on mans part, nor yet in the promise or threat­ning, nor yet in the continuance of them.

1. The Author of them is not the same: for the Author of the Covenant of nature is God the Creators of all natural beings: but the Author of the Co­venant [Page 53] of grace and reconciliation is God Redeemers in a supernatural way.

2. There is no likeness or agreement between the subjects of these two Cove­nants: for the subjects of the Covenant of nature was perfect natural mankind; but the subjects of the Covenant of reconciliation is man fallen and corrupted.

3. There is no likeness or agreement in the conditions that are to be performed on mans part: for the condition that God required to be performed on mans part in the Covenant of nature, was no more but one natural act of eating of the Tree of life in the first place, for the confirmation of his moral or natural perfections. But the condition that God hath required to be performed on mans part in the Covenant of reconciliation, is the supernatural act of faith in Christ, not to be once done only, but to be daily renewed. 4. There is no likeness or agreement in their promises and threatnings; for the promise of the Covenant of nature did reach no further, but to the confirmation of his concreated natural life for ever, in the sweet contents of an earthly Para­dise, in case Adam did first eat of the Tree of the twofold life : and the threatning of that Covenant was no other but a double Spiritual death to be suffered in this world only, in case Adam did but first eat of the forbidden fruit: but the promise of the Covenant of reconciliation doth reach far be­yond this natural life; namely, to a supernatural and heavenly life for ever, in the sweet contents of the heavenly Paradise to all such as shall attain to the su­pernatural grace of faith in Christ: and the threatning is an eternal death in Hell to all s [...]h as l [...]ve and die in the unbelief of their redemption, by the promi­sed seed of the woman. 5. There is no likeness or agreement in the continuance of these Covenants: for the Covenant of nature was ordained to last no longer in use, but until Adams obedience was tried by one single act of eating; the which trial was also to be made in the very day of his Creation (as I have shewed it more at large elsewhere) as soon therefore as Adam had but tasted of the forbidden fruit in the first place, that Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. was totally extinguished, before ever the Covenant of reconciliation was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and thence it followes by necessary consequence, that the Covenant of reconciliation cannot have any dependance at all on the Covenant of nature, neither in relation to Christs satisfaction, nor yet in relation to a sinners justi­fication, nor yet in any other respect whatsoever, as Mr. Nortons foundation proposition doth affirm: but on the contrary God hath established the Cove­nant of reconciliation to be perpetuated to all Adams fallen posterity to the end of the world, Psal. 111. 9. Esa. 24. 5. Ebr. 13. 20. to try whether they will live and die believers or infidels: and in that respect it was that Christ said un­to Apostles, Go ye into all the wo [...]ld, and preach the Gospel to every crea [...]ure; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 15.

4. Hence it doth also follow, that when God did first appoint a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. he did at the same time appoint a particular judgement to follow it to each departed soul, as the Apostle doth tell us and assure us [...] Ebr 9 27. namely, to all such as die in the faith of their redemption by the promised seed of the woman, an eternal life in Heaven, but to all those that live and die in the unbelief thereof an eternal death in Hell. At first God appointed a Spiri­tual death in Gen. 2. 17. 2. a bodily death, and 3. an eternal death in Hell, in [Page 54] Gen. 3. 19. These three distinct sorts of death have not any natural de­pendance on each other; but they all proceed from the several threatnings of Gods justice; first from the threatning of the Covenant of nature, and the two other sorts from the Covenant of grace.

5. Therefore it is a great error to make these three distinct sorts of death to be al threatned in the Covenant of nature, seeing the first sort only was threatned in that Covenant, and the other two were only threatned under the Covenant of grace.

But woe and alas! all these three several sorts of death are confounded by Mr. Nortons unlimited exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. to the cor­rupting of several fundamental truths, especially of the great point of Christs satisfaction, and also of the great point of a sinners justification; as his first foundation proposition dath carry the matter: and 3. to the corrupting of the true sence of abundance of the blessed Scriptures, as I have in some mea­sure shewed in sundry places of this Treatise.

SECT. V.

Being a further description of the second part of our Spiritual death in sin, by cor­ruption of nature, as it is threatned in Gen. 2. 17.

1. IT is granted generally (as I think) that no other Scripture can be found that doth threaten a Spiritual death in sin to Adam, and to all h [...] natural po­sterity, but Gen. 2. 17. and therefore this consideration should advise all that love the truth in sincerity, to be more then ordinarily careful, that they do not confound that kind of death which is only threatned in this Text, for the trans­gression of the Covenant of nature, with the threatning of a bodily death, and with the threatning of an eternal death in Hell, seeing these last two sorts of death were not threatned, until after the Covenant of grace was first decla­red in Gen. 3. 15. but then presently after Adam was threatned with a bodily death for Original sin, in v. 19. and by Gods relative justice in the Covenant, an eternal death in Hell doth follow to all that live and die in the unbelief of their redemption by the promised seed of the woman.

2. Consider that these three sorts of death were threatned from two distinct and opposite Covenants; namely, the first sort from the Covenant of meer na­ture: and 2. the other two sorts of death were threatned under the Covenant of Gods free grace: these two Covenants must carefully be differenced and di­stinguished, or else abundance of Scriptures will unavoidably be misinter­preted, and several fundamental points of Divinity will be erroneously ex­pounded, especially that weighty point of Christs satisfaction, and that weigh­ty point of a sinners justification: but woe and alas! such confounding of the Covenants hath already taken such deep root in the minds of many, that it will be a two-handed labour to rectifie their minds, and to free their understandings from the said errors; especially such as through long custome are naturalized to the said errors. More easie it is, saith one of the ancient Divines, to put off any other customes, how much soever he is affixed to them, then to lay aside his accustomed opinion.

3. Take special notice that it was the godly care of the ancient Ebrew Do­ctors [Page 55] of Ezra's age, or of the longest livers of that age, to keep in memory the weighty point of our Spiritual death in sin, in a distinct sort from the other The word Dead is often used in the Thalmu­dikes for dead in sin; and from their making of that word com­mon, our Savi­our and his Apostles did of­ten use it in the new Testament, as approving the care of their godly an­cestors to make it common. two kinds of death, because it seems they foresaw & feared, that their posterity wo [...]ld be very apt to confound the threatning of a Spiritual death in sin, in Gen. 2. 17. with the threatning of a bodily death under the Covenant of grace, in Gen. 3. 15, 19. therefore they out of a tender care to preserve the memory of the second sort of our Spiritual death in Gen. 2. 17. distinct to their posterity, did labour to make this phrase common, The dead (in sin) or the dead in soul: and they could not ground this phrase so well upon any other Text in the old Testament, as upon Gen. 2. 17.

1. Du Plessis in his Trueness of Religion, Chap. 27. saith, that Rab. Moses Ben Maymo [...]y understandeth by the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. a Spiritual death; that is to say, the death of the soul wounded with sin, and so forsaken of her life, which is God.

2. The ancient Ebrew Doctors that are related to by Rab. Menachem say; unto this world there cleaveth the secret filthiness of the Serpent which came upon Eve; and because of that filthiness Death is come upon Adam and his seed, &c. See Ains. in Gen. 3. 19. and saith Ains. in Gen. 3. 15. the mystery of Ori­ginal sin, and thereby death over all, and deliverance by Christ. Rab. Menachem on Lev. 5. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words; So long as the Spirit of uncleanness is not taken away out of this world, the fouls that come down into this world must needs die, to root out the power of uncleanness out of the world, and to consume the same; and all this is, Because of the decree which was decreed for the uncleanness and filthiness which the Serpent brought upon Eve.

From these and such like testimonies from the ancient Ebrew Doctors, it is evident they had a bodily death to be inflicted, not for Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, but for his Original corruption only.

3. It is observed by Mr. Bro. in Rev. p. 278. That Zeror Hamor an ancient Rabbin, doth very often use this phrase, The dead, for the dead in sin: and saith he in pag. 301. this is a Thalmudike phrase, The dead: for the profane often in Ze­ror: and to that very phrase doth the Rabbin speak, in 2 Esdras 2. 16. The Sy­nagogue doth there find fault with her own children; saying, Those that be dead will I raise up from their places: and the Rabbin that wrote Baruch faith, Hear the prayer of the dead Israelites, Chap. 3. 4. and saith he in v. 11. They are defiled with the dead, and are counted with them that go down to the graves.

4. It is observed by Mr. Ains. in Erod. 16. 13. That Rab. Menacham speak­eth thus of the dew that covered the Manna; that the holy blessed God will raise up the dead to life therewith, in the time that is to come. His meaning can be no other, but that God will raise up the dead in sin to the life of grace, by the sweet dew of the preaching of the Gospel in the days of the Messias to come.

By these and such like instances, which might be produced from their anci­ent Ebrew Doctors, we may perceive their godly care to keep in memory the true sence of the tearm Death in Gen. 2. 17. [...]o their posterity: but in case they had confounded that kind of death in Gen. 2. 17. with a bodily death, and with an eternal death in Hell, as Mr. Norton doth, then the ve [...]y memory of that Spiritual death in sin would have been raked up in oblivion, and then their po­sterity would have been utterly ignorant of it before the days of Christ (as ma­ny [Page 56] of that pestilent Sect of the Sadduces were) But blessed be God for the car [...] of their ancestors to preserve the name of it, for the memory of it, to the days of Christ: for then both he and his Apostles did labor to make it more known and more authentick in the new Testament.

1. Christ said thus to one that desired to be his Disciple, on condition that he might have leave first to go and bury his father: but our Saviour answered him, Let the dead (namely, the dead in sin) bury the dead: (in body) follow thou me, Matth. 8. 22. Luke 9. 60.

2. Christ propounded the words that the Father of the prodigal Son said; 1. To his servants in Luke 15. 24. and then to his elder brother: in v. 32. This thy brother was dead, and is alive again; (that is to say, he was dead in a pro­fane course of sinning, but now being converted [...]y the regeneration of his mind he is made alive again) and in this respect regeneration is called, The first resurrection from the death in sin to the life of grace, Rev. 20. 6. Rom. 6. 13. And saith Christ, The hour is coming, and now is, that the dead (in sin) shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear it shall live, John 5. 25.

3. The Apostle Peter said, that he preached the Gospel of salvation to the dead (in sin) that they might live according to God in the spirit, 1 Pet. 4. 6. and so consequently our first parents were dead in sin, when the Gospel was first preached to them in Gen. 3. 15.

4. The Apostle said thus to the Romans, Through the offence of one the many be dead, Rom. 5. 15. namely, the many elected ones (as well as the reprobates) are dead in sin by nature; for through the offence of one (saith he) Death, i.e. Death in sin hath reigned by one, v. 17. The word many in v. 15. doth mean the elect only; and Doctor Willet doth approve of Haymo for that exposition.

5. Paul saith, If one died for all, then were all dead (in sin) 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15.

6. Paul saith (You elected Ephesians) hath he quickned, who were dead in cor­ruption and sins, Eph. 2. 1. and saith he in v. 5. Even when we were dead in sin hath he quickned together in Christ: hence it followes, that there is no life from this death in sin, but by the new Covenant of grace, and by the work of rege­neration, and by faith in Christ, John 3. 16. John 5. 40. John 6. 33, 35, 46, 51, 53, 63. John 10. 10. 1 John 5. 12. Rev. 2. 7. Rom. 6. 13.

7. Paul saith, By nature we are alienated from the life of God, Eph. 4. 18. Hence it followes, that seeing all Adams natural generation are alienated from that concreated life of God, wherein Adam was created after Gods image in moral perfections; they must needs be dead spiritually by nature.

8. Paul did thus perswade the unconverted Ephesians, To arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light, Eph. 5. 14.

9. Paul said thus to the Colossians, You being dead in your sins, and in the un­circumcision of your flesh, hath he quickned together with him, forgiving you all your trespasses, Col. 2. 13.

10. Paul affirms, That the young widow that lived in sinful pleasures was dead, 1 Tim. 5. 6.

11. The Apostle John saith, We know that we are passed from death to life, (namely, from the death of sin to the life of grace) because we love the brethren: he that loveth not his brother abideth in death; namely, in the death of sin, 1 John 3. 14. in his natural and unregenerate estate.

[Page 57] 12. Christ said thus to the Angel of the Church of Sardis, Thou hast a name that thou livest, but thou art d [...]ad, Rev. 3. 1.

13. The Apostle doth call the natural condition of all men, even of the elect as they come from Adam, The body of sin, Rom. 6. 6. because that Original sin which they derive from Adam, doth infect the whole man both soul and body: and 2. He calls it, the Law of sin, Rom. 7. 23. because it was inflicted for Adams transgression of the positive Law of the Covenant of nature: and 3. He doth also call it, The body of death, in v. 24. because Adam and his posterity were de­prived of the life of Gods concreated image: and thence followed that kind of sin which is now called Original sin; and is here called by the Apostle, The bo­dy of death (in sin.)

14. All the best works of man that proceed from him before he is regenera­ted, are called, Dead works, Ebr. 6. 1. Ebr. 9. 14. because they proceed from such as are dead in sin spiritually.

These and such like expressions are very rarely used in the old Testament: but we see that the new Testament doth abound with them in an honourable memorial of the like Thalmudike words and phrases, received by tradition from their more ancient Ebrew Doctors, that lived near unto Ezras age: and doubtless those godly Doctors did borrow that phrase from the true sence and meaning of the word Death, in Gen. 2. 17. for they could not borrow it so well from any other place in all the old Testament: and doub [...]less they did foresee, that their poste­rity would be in great danger to obliterate this precious sence of the word Death, in Gen. 2. 17. by turning it to a bodily death: and therefore out of a tender care to preserve the memory of it in a distinct sort from a bodily death, and from an eternal death in Hell, they did in their writings frequently use the tearm de [...]d, for the dead in sin, that their posterity might be touched with the greater sence of their misery; 1. In being deprived of the l [...]fe of Gods concreated image of moral perfections, and 2. That they might thereby the better see how Original sin did abound, and that thereby they might be forced to fly to the promised seed of the woman, for the Spirit of regeneration, and for their justification to life by Gods atonement, procured by the most perfect obedience of Christ to the death, even to the shameful and painful death of the Cross.

But because regeneration is not wrought without the concurrence of true re­pentance, therefore it is also called, Repentance from dead works, Ebr. 6. 1. and repentance to life, Acts 11. 16. And in this respect Christ did not only merit the Spirit, for the regenerating of poor humbled sinners from the death of sin to the life of grace, 2 Cor. 3. 6. but the Father also in the respect of his merit is said to take away the stone out of the heart of poor humbled sinners, and to make them as soft as fle [...]h : and in both these respects it is said, He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 John 5. 12. and in this sence also the calling of the Jews (yet to come) is called, Life from the dead, Rom. 11. 15. and in this sence also the meritorious cause of this life is cal­led, The justification of life, Rom. 5. 18. as the context from v. 12. doth make it evident.

SECT. II.

[...]rovi [...]g by two a [...]guments borrowed frrom Mr. Baxter, that neither a bodily death, nor y [...]t an eternal death in H [...]ll were threatned in Gen. 2. 17.

• 1. B [...]cause Christ is the Author of the resurrection.
• 2. Because Christ is also the Author of the last judgement.

1 IT is well observed by Mr. Baxter, (in his Aphoris. 69. and in Appendix 30▪) that there is no intimation of a resurrection in Scripture, as any part of the penalty of the Covenant of works, (so he calls the Covenant of nature, though very unfitly) or as a preparative to it; that Adam should have risen again to be condemned or executed, if Christ had not come, no Scripture speaks: but rather on the contrary, resurrection (saith he) is ascribed unto Christ alone, 1 Cor. 15. 12, 21, 22, 52. and saith he in his Appendix, many Scriptures do make Christ as Med [...]ator, to be the procurer of the resurrection: (and for this see John 5. 28, 29. John 11. 25. 1 Thes. 4. 14, 15, 16, 17.)

2. Saith he in his Saints rest, (par. 1 c 5. Sect. 2.) Athanasi [...]s doth fully prove, that there should have been no resurrection, had not Christ died: and 2. That he died for all so far as to raise them.

From these sound assertions it followes, 1. That neither a bodily death, nor yet an eternal death in Hell were threatned in the Covenant of nature, in Gen. 2. 17. seeing Christ as Mediator was not revealed in that Covenant. 2 From thence it followes, that seeing Christ as Mediator is the only Author of the resurrection of all dead bodies; none else must raise the dead bodies of be­lievers to be reunited to their glorified souls, nor none else must raise the dead bodies of unbelievers to be reunited to their condemned souls in Hell fire but he. And 3. Seeing Christ as Mediator was not revealed in the Covenant of nature, he could not be the Author of a bodily death, nor of a bodily resurrection in any relation to the threatning of that Covenant.

2. My second Argument is, that Christ as Mediator was ordained to be the only Judge of all flesh, even as he is the son of man, John 5. 22, 27, 28.

But the Covenant of nature did not ordain him to be the Judge of all flesh, as he is the Son of man; for that Covenant made no revelati­on of Christ as Mediator; but the first time that he was declared to be the son of man, for the breaking of the Devils head-plot for mans re­demption, was by the Covenant of reconciliation, which was first de­clared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore he did then first ordain a bodily death in v. 19. and then [...]lso he ordained a judgement to follow to each [Page 78] departed soul, Ebr. 9. 27. and so consequently a general judgement for all dead bodies at the end of the world.

And to this very sence doth Mr. Baxter speak in his Sermon of the Last Judge­ment, Sect. 11. This sentence (sa [...]th he) which will pass u [...]on all sinners at the last day, doth much d [...]ffer from that which passed upon the first sin, or which [...]s due according to the Law of works alone: [...]or 1. As to the penalty called the pain of loss, the first judgement did depr [...]ve man of the favour of his Creator, but the second will deprive him o [...] the favour both of the Creator and the Redeem­er: the first judgement deprived him of the benefits of his innocency, the se­cond deprives him of the benefits of redemption, the loss of his hopes, and pos­sibility of pardon of the Spirit of justification and adoption, and of the bene­fits which conditionally were promised and offered him. These are the pun [...]sh­ments of the last judgement, which the Law of works did never threaten to the first man, (or to any) as it stood alone, &c.

2. Saith he, as to the pain of sence, the last judgement by the Redeemer will sentence them to a far sorer punishment, then would have befallen them▪ if no Saviour had been offered them, Ebr. 9. 29.

The conscience of Adam, if he had not been redeemed, would never have tormented him for rejecting a Redeemer, nor for refusing or abusing his gra­cious offers, nor for the forfeiting of a recovered happiness, nor for refusing the easie tearms of the Gospel, which would have given him Christ and salva­tion for the accepting, nor for the neglecting of any means that tended to recove­ry, no, nor for refusing repentance unto life, nor for disobeying a Redeemer that bought him by his blood: As all these are the penalties of the Redeemers Law and Judgement; so it is a sorer penalty then conscience would have infli­cted, meerly for not being perfectly innocent; and they will be far sorer gri­pings and gnawings of the never dying worm, for the abuse of these talents, then if we had never been trusted with any, after our first forfeiture : yea, and God himself will accordingly proportion his punishments, so that to their loss and feeling the Redeemer will pass on them a heavier doom, then the Creation did or would have done, according to the first Law to perfect man.

3. Saith he, another property of the Judgement of Christ is, that it will be final, peremptory, and excluding all further hopes or possibilities of a remedy, so was not the first Judgement of the Creator upon fallen man, though the Law of pure nature knew no remedy, nor gave any hope of a Redeemer; yet it did not exclude a remedy, nor put in a bar against one. But in the Law of grace he hath resolved that there shall be no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgement and fire, which shall devour the adversary, Ebr. 10. 26. 27. and that the fire shall be everlasting, and that the worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched, Matth. 25. ult. Mar. 13. 42, 50. John 5. 27. Matth. 5. 26. Matth. 3. 12. Mar. 9. 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, &c.

SECT. II.

Proving, that Adam was out under the obedience of a meer transient positive Law, by the Covenant of nature o [...]ly, and not by creation.

1. GOds positive Covenant with Adam was this; Eat first of this Tree which I do name Gue [...]s Ca [...]jm, the Tree of the twofold life, and then thy concreated moral perfections after my image and likeness shall be confirmed un­to thee, and to all thy natural posterity successively: but eat not of this other A briefe descri­ption of the Covenant of na­ture made with Adam. Tree, which I have now shewed thee in the midst of the Garden, For in the day that thou eatest thereof, in dying thou shalt die, a twofold death: 1. Thou shalt be deprived of thy concreated life of moral perfections after my image and like­ness: and then 2. Corruption of mind shall rush in upon thee of its own accord, and by that means thou shalt become dead in sin, and all thy posterity succes­sively.

2. This positive Covenant and the Law of it was not written in Adams heart and mind by creation, as the moral Law of nature was, for then he should by his creation have been made acquainted with Gods secret decrees and counsels, touching the full reason of his said positive Law and Covenant, and then he could not have willed to have eaten of the forbidden fruit, no more then he could will to sin against the moral Law of his nature, and then also he could not have been deceived by the Devils temptation; nay then he would have wil­led irresistably to have eaten of the twofold Tree of life in the first place, seeing in the time of Adams innocency sin did not depend on the will and affections, as they were made by God, but as they are now corrupted: and from thence it followes that Adam was not created after the image and likeness of God in his knowledge and obedience to his arbitrary positive Laws, as he was in the know­ledge and obedience of every branch of the moral Law of his nature.

3. It is most evident by the threatning that was added to the Covenant of nature, that the Law of that Covenant was not written in Adams heart and mind, as the moral Law was, but that it was imposed upon him with a condi­tional threatning: but the moral Law of his nature was not imposed upon him by any threatning, but it was written in his heart and mind as the meer Law of his perfect nature, to guide it in a perfect conformity to Gods will in all moral duties, without any promise or threatning annexed thereunto, as it is noted be­fore from Mr. Rutherford at N ^o 4.

4. It is further evident, that the said positive Law of the Covenant of na­ture was not imposed on Adam, until a certain distance of time after his creati­on: and 2. It was not imposed on him, until a certain distance of time after The transient Covenant of nature was not made with A­dam, until se­veral distances of time after his creation. the womans creation: and 3. It was not imposed on him, until after a certain distance of time, after that God had married them together, and had com­manded them to be one flesh, for the procreation of their like in nature: and 4. It was not imposed on them, until a certain distance of time after that God had brought them into Paradise, and had shewed them the two Trees; then, and not till then God said unto them, I have planted this Tree of the twofold life in the midst of the Garden, Gen. 2. 9. and this other Tree also in the midst of [Page 85] the Garden, of the which thou shalt not eat, For in the day thou eatest thereof, in dying thou shalt die.

5. It is further evident, that the womans first eating of the forbidden fruit Though Eve did first eat of the forbidden fruit, yet she was not put first under the punishment of a Spiritual d [...]ath in si [...], God did su­spend that pu­nishment, until Adam the head in the Covenant had eaten thereof. was no transgression of any part of the moral Law of nature; for then her sin­gle person should have been put under the actual punishment of that threatned Spiritual death in the time of her eating, and before Adam had eaten thereof: for the womans single person was created under the obedience of every branch of the moral Law of nature, as much as Adams was; But yet her single person was not put under the actual punishment of the said Spiritual death for her first act of eating, as much as Adam was for his first act of eating; for if she had been punished with a Spiritual death in sin, in her first act of eating, it would instantly have bewrayed it self by the evil effects of it, and then Adam (being as yet in his moral perfections) could not otherwise choose but he must have ta­ken notice of it by its evil effects, and then in wisdom he would have refrained from the eating of it: but it seems that God did not inflict a Spiritual death in sin upon Eve, for her first act of eating, but suspended the execution thereof until Adam the head in that Covenant had eaten thereof; then, and not till then the eyes of them both were opened together at one and the same point of time; then, and not till then her first act of eating took its effect; then, and not till then Eve knew that they were both naked together, i.e. deprived of their concreated life of moral perfections; then, and not till then they sowed fig-tree leaves together to make themselves Aprons, Gen. 3. 7. because their corrupt af­fections Gen. 3▪ 7. and passions did then, and not till then break forth to their shame: and th [...]s was one of the evil effects of their Spiritual death in sin, as it is rightly no­ted by Austin; in that their soul folt a disobedient motion in their flesh, they did thereupon make themselves Aprons, to cover their bodies secret parts.

From hence I reason thus: If these evil effects had been first executed on Eves single person, for her first act of eating the forbidden fruit, before Adam had eaten, (as doubtless they would, in case her act of eating had been a trans­gression of any branch of the moral Law of nature) then Adam, soul which was made naturally holy and righteous, could not otherwise choose but have taken special notice of it, and then he would certainly have shunned to have eaten of the forbidden fruit from her hand, that so he might not come under the same punishment with her.

But seeing Adam did not refrain from taking and eating of the said forbidden fruit from her hand, it is an undeniable proof, that the said punishment of a Spiritual death in sin was not as yet executed on her single person; and the rea­son thereof is so plain, that he that runs may read it; namely, because the posi­tive Law of that Covenant was not made with Eves single person (as the mo­ral Law of nature was) but with Adam in the first place, as the head of the Covenant of nature, and with the woman it was made conjunctim, and not di­visim, because God had conjoyned her by marriage to be one flesh with Adam, for the procreation of their like in nature.

2. Though she was first in the transgression, 1 Tim. 2. 14. yet it is not said 1. Tim. 2. 14. Rom. 5. 12. that we all sinned in Ev', but that we all sinned in Adam, because he was con­stituted to be the head in the Covenant of nature: and accordingly it is said, that his sin and punishment is derived from him to all his natural posterity: and [Page 86] the order of the commination doth run so; in the day that thou (Adam the head of the Covenant of nature) doest eat thereof, in dying thou shalt die; and yet the word Thou doth in the second place reach in Eve, because she was by mar­riage made one flesh with Adam, for the procreation of their like in nature, and in that respect also they are both together called Adam, Gen. 5. 2. And the word Thou doth also in the third place fetch in all their natural posterity, seeing they were by marriage made one flesh, for the procreation of their like in nature, Rom. 5. 12. Eph. 2. 1, 2. This Law of the Covenant of nature was thus made by Gods supream and arbitrary authority, for the discovery of his eternal counsel for mans fall, and for his redemption by Christ, the seed of the deceived ca­ptive woman. And to this sence doth Ains. speak: this Law (saith he) was gi­ven both to the man and to the woman, being both together called Adam, Gen. 5. 2. (and saith he) the woman doth confess as much in Gen. 3. 3. and the Greek version (saith he) doth manifest it, saying in Gen. 2. 17. Ye shall not eat.

3. It is also observed by Mr. Bro. (in his Principal Positions, pag. 10.) that those marriage Books have an oversight, that say the woman was formed in Pa­radise; for the commandment, Thou shalt not eat ther [...]of, Gen. 2. 17. went not before the creation of the woman (nor yet before she was by marriage made to be one flesh with Adam, for the procreation of their like in nature) but after: she had the commandment as well as Adam, in the same tearm [Thou] as being but one flesh by marriage: this remarkable observation I have also cited in my Book of the Institution of the Sabbath, in pag. 9.

4. Doctor Ames saith, that Adam was properly the beginning of mankind, not Eve, unless as she was made for him, and with him, to make one and the same beginning: and (saith he) hence it is that we read of a second Adam, not of a second Eve, in M [...]dul. c. 11. Sect. 30.

5. P. Martyr saith, though Eve transgressed before the man, yet The origi­nal of sinning is ascribed unto Adam, because the succession by propagation is ac­counted in men and not in women, in Com. pl. pag. 242.

In these words he speaks home to what I have immediately asserted; and saith he, although our first parents sinned, yet Paul saith, There was not one manner of transgression in them both: for Adam did not say, the Serpent hath de­ceived me, but the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat, Gen. 3. 12. but the woman said in v. 13. The Serpent hath be­guiled me, and I did eat.

From these speeches of P. Martyrs it followes, that Eves sin was not a wilful sin against any branch of the moral Law of her nature, (as Mr. Norton doth affirm most erroneously) seeing she said she was beguil­ed, Gen. 3. 13. and seeing the Apostle doth also affirm, that she was be­guiled through Satans subtilty, 2 Cor. 11. 3. But in case her act of eat­ing Gen. 3. 13. 3 Cor. 11. 3. Eves sin was not a wilful sin against her mo­ral principles. had been a sin against any part of the moral Law of nature, she could not be said to be beguiled: but then it would have been a wilful sin, even against the light of her own natural reason: but seeing she was made after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections, it is no less then blasphemy to affirm, that she sinned wilfully against the clear light of her concreated moral principles.

6. Austin affirmeth, that the woman did think the Serpents words to be [Page 87] true, 1 Tim. 2. 14. and (saith he) though Adam was not first deceived by the Serpent, yet he was afterwards deceived by his wife: for he said thus unto God, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did As long as A­dam continued in his innocency, no object was set before his eyes that might necessarily pro­voke his natu­ral fear; See Chap. 2. Sect. 1. at N ^o 8. eat; namely, without the least fear or suspition of any hurt that had befallen her by her first act of eating, or without any fear or suspition of any hurt to my self, by eating of that fruit from her hand, that was given to be a mutual helper to me: for as long as Adam stood in his innocency, no object of any fear was set before his eyes; namely, no object that might stir up his natural fear of any hurt that might befal him: and in this respect Austin doth affirm, (in the City of God, l. 14, c. 20.) that Adam could not have been reputed happy in Paradise, if he had been troubled with any fear; and Mr. Wea [...]es doth affirm the same truth in his Portraiture, pag. 200. and of this see more in Chap. 2. N ^o 4.

7. It is also worthy of special observation, that though Eve could not be deceived in her obedience to the moral Law of her nature, because she was cre­ated after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections, yet she might ea­sily be deceived in her transient positive obedience, to the transient positive Law of the Covenant of nature; 1. Because it was not written in her understand­ing and will, as the moral Law was. 2 Because she was perswaded to eat of it for her best good, by a good Angel, as she thought (doubtless) it was, that God had sent to reverse his former prohibition, and to perswade her to eat of it for her best good: for she was as yet ignorant of the fall of any part of the Angels, and therefore she did believe the Angels words to be true. And so saith Ambrose (in his first Book of offices, c. 31.) The only reason why Eve committed her self to the Serpents trust, was, because she which had received nothing but benevo­lence, could not think there were any such things as malevolence and evil meaning. *

8. As Eve was deceived by the perswasion of the good Angel, so Adam was overcome by the friendly perswasion of his wife. Austin saith in Genesis, that Adam was not overcome with any concupisence of her flesh, Which as yet he felt not, not with the Law of his members, resisting the Law of his minde, But he was overcome with a certain friendly benevolence and good will: But I judge and suppose, (saith he) that he could no manner of ways be deceived by the subtilty of the Serpent, as the woman was; and (saith he) the Apostle doth call that properly, A deceiving, by which the thing that was perswaded was thought to be true, when it was false. The Devil had not been subtil, if he had first perswaded A­dam to eat of the forbidden fruit, for then he could not af­ter that have deceived the woman to eat of it.

From this supposition of Austins, that Adam could not have been deceived by the Serpent, as the woman was; I infer that the Devil was more cunning then to go about it: for in case the Devil had first deceived Adam, he could ne­ver after that have deceived the woman: for in case Adam the head in that Covenant had been first deceived to eat first of the forbidden fruit, he should at that instant have been punished with a Spiritual death in sin, and then the evil effects of it would at that instant also have shewed it self to the woman, and then her concreated moral perfections were such, that she could not after that have been deceived to eat of that prohibited fruit, neither by Satans suggesti­ons, nor by Adams perswasions: and this the Devil knew well enough before­hand, and therefore he did first begin with the woman, and then he made her his instrument to deceive Adam.

[Page 88] Conclusions from the premises.

1. From hence it followes, that the Law of the transient Covenant of na­ture had no relation at all to any part of the moral Law of nature: for in case it had depended on any part of the moral Law of nature, then Eves single person had been first put under the threatned punishment of a Spiritual death in sin, for her first act of eating before Adam had eaten, because her single per­son was by creation put under the obedience of every branch of the moral Law of nature, as much as Adams person was: but tis evident, that the threatned punishment of a Spiritual death in sin was not executed upon her single person at the first instant of her eating; for in case it had, then Adam could not other­wise choose but have taken notice of it by the evil effects of it, and then his wisdom was such, that he would ever after have refused (with utter detestation) to have taken and eaten of that forbidden fruit from her hand, that so he might not come under the same vindicative punishment.

2. From hence it doth also follow, that though Eve was first in the trans­gression, In case Adam had but forborn to have eaten of the forbid­den fruit from Eves hand, all his posterity should have been confirmed in his concrea­ted moral per­fections. yet the Covenant of nature was not fully broken by Eves first act of eating the forbidden fruit, because her single person was not ordained to be the head in the Covenant of nature, she was indeed under the Law of the Cove­nant of nature in her married conjunction with Adam the head, but not divi­ded. 2 From hence it doth also follow, that in case Adam the head in that Co­venant had but forborn the act of eating, his natural posterity should not have been punished with a Spiritual death in sin for Eves transgression, notwithstand­ing his natural and matrimonial union with her; for as I noted it before from P. Martyr, at N ^o 5, succession by propagation is accounted from men, and not from women. 3. From hence it doth also follow, that in case Adam had first seen the evil effects of her Spiritual death in sin, he would on the contrary have instantly eaten of the Tree of the twofold life, that so his concreated perfecti­ons might have been confirmed to him, and to all his natural posterity succes­sively.

3. From hence also may be deduced another unconquerable reason, why the Law of the Covenant of nature had no dependance at all upon any branch of the moral Law of nature; namely, because Adam and Eves moral perfections were such, both in their understanding, will, and affections, that they could not have willed to eat of the forbidden fruit, in case it had been contrary thereun­to: for by their concreated moral principles they were as exactly conformable to every branch of the moral Law of nature, as Christs soul was, so that no temptation to any sin against any branch of that moral Law, could possibly have prevailed, as may be seen by the example of Christ: for as soon as the Devil began to tempt him to a moral sin, (namely, to throw himself down from the top of the Pinacle of the Temple : and 2. To fall down and worship him) he said unto him, Hence Satan, Matth. 4. 10. The like answer doubtless would Eve have given, in case the Serpent had but perswaded her to a moral sin, when he perswaded her to eat of the forbidden fruit, and then the Devil should have lost his labour; for Eves concreated moral perfections were such, that she would instantly have perceived that some of the Angels were fallen, and that they were now become tempters of her to sin against the light of her concreated mo­ral perfections.

[Page 89] 4. From hence also we may see the reason why Eve was first deceived by the subtil Serpent, and why Adam was afterwards deceived by Eve; namely, be­cause this arbitrary Law, and transient Covenant was not made with Eve, but with Adam: and 2. Because it was not written in their heart and mind, as eve­ry part of the moral Law of nature was; for had it been so written, then they could not have been deceived by Satans temptations: but seeing it pleased God to hide the internal ground thereof in his secret decree, together with the inter­nal ground and reason of that other positive Law that was given to the Angels, (as I have also noted it in my former printed Reply, in pag. 11, 159.) they might the more easily be deceived by Satans specious temptations.

For though Adam and Eve knew that God had commanded all his visible Creatures to attend on them into Paradise, as upon their visible Lord, and that The sin of the Angels was their disobedi­ence to Gods positive com­mand, to attend upon Adam in Paradise; as it is noted by Bro. in his Sin sight, a [...]d in Revel. p. 303. 304. The image of God after which Adam was concreated, stood in a per­fect conformity to every cir­cumstance of his moral Law, but not so to all the circumstan­ces of his arb [...] ­trary to positive Laws. God had commanded his heavenly Angels to wait upon them for their best good, (for the Scriptures do tell us, that God hath commanded all his Angels to at­tend upon such as shall be heirs of salvation, Ebr. 1. 14. Psal. 91. 11.) yet Adam and Eve were at the first ignorant, that some part of these heavenly Angels did refuse to attend on them, and that God for that disobedience had deprived them of their first concreated moral perfections: and 2. That they were now pu­nished with a double Spiritual death, and were become an envious company against the good of man. 2. Adam and Eve were also ignorant, that these fal­len Angels had obtained leave of God to enter into the Serpent, and to actu­ate the tongue of the Serpent, to speak with mans voice, and so to perswade the woman that God had now reversed his former prohibition, and that now they had a liberty of power to eat of the former prohibited Tree for their best good.

In these and such like circumstances, about the transient positive Law that was given to the Angels, Adam and Eve might well be ignorant, because their understanding and will was not created in the knowledge and obedience of eve­ry branch and circumstance of Gods arbitrary positive Laws, as they were in the knowledge and obedience of every branch and circumstance of the moral Law of nature. It was Gods good pleasure to reserve the internal reasons of all his posi [...]ive Laws in his own secret decrees, until he was pleased to reveal them by his annexed promises or threatnings, or by their events. 3. Because the act­ings of the Angels about Gods arbitrary commands, were not obvious to be di­scerned, neither by the bodily sences of Adam and Eve, nor yet by their natu­ral and rational principles. From thence it followes, that seeing Adam and Eve were ignorant, 1 Of the fall of some part of the Angels, 2. Of their cunning head-plot to ask leave of God, that they might enter into the Serpent to tempt the woman to eat of the forb [...]dden fruit, with such specious and artificial per­swasions as might prevail, as if they had acted the part of good Angels: [...]t is the less wonder therefore, that Eve was so easily and so quickly deceived. 4. On the contrary the most of the said circumstances of Gods positive Law given to Adam, were, as it were, experimentally known to the fallen Angels; and they knew also that Adam and Eve were as yet ignorant of the said circumstances, and they knew also that their ignorance of them would be a ready helping cause to them, to speed their temptations, as I have formerly noted it in my Book of the Institution of the Sabbath.

5. P. Martyr saith, that Adam at first could not by his reason know that the [Page 90] Devil was fallen; or else (saith he) his will had been governed by his mind. P. Martyr doth in these words affirm the same thing that I do; namely, that it came to pass from Adams ignorance of the fall of one part of the Angels, that the Serpent was too cunning for the woman: for doubtless at the present she could not think it to be any other but a good Angel that God had sent to re­verse his former prohibition, and so to perswade her to eat of that fruit for her best good; and in that respect she committed her self to the Angels trust: for she that had received nothing but benevolence, could not as yet think there were any such thing as malevolence and evil meaning: and after this sort did the old Prophet deceive the young Prophet; for the young Prophet thought that the old Prophet was sent by God (as he said he was) to reverse the former prohibition, and to give him a liberty of power both to eat and to drink in that place, contrary to Gods former prohibition, 2 Kings 13. but he lyed unto him as the Angel did to Eve.

6. It is worthy the noting also, which Philip of M [...]rnay saith; that the wi­sest The reason why Adam before his f [...]ll, and ma­ny others since have transgres­sed Gods arbi­trary positives, was because God did hide the internal reasons of those Laws in his se­cret decrees. men are often deceived by false spies, to make wrong deliberations, by mis­taking likelyhoods instead of truth; and such mistakings have often hapned to wise men, about some certain circumstances in Gods arbitrary and transient positive Laws, as I instanced before in the case of the young Prophet, and in the case of Ahab, and of divers others, which I have cited in the next Chapter; by the which you may see that God was often pleased to hide some circumstan­ces (in those kind of Laws) in his secret decrees: and thence it came to pass, that several persons in several cases have made wrong deliberations, and for their transgressions have fallen under the threatned penalties.

7. From hence also it is observable, that though there was no sinful igno­rance in Adam, touching his obedience to Gods said positive Law, yet there was a negative ignorance in him (as there was also in the humane nature of Christ, though in another case) touching some circumstances that concerned the said positive Law and Covenant, and also touching Gods positive Law and Covenant made with the Angels: and from thence it came to pass, (as Luther truly saith, in Psal. 130. 5.) That the Serpent provoked Eve to dispute of a by-matter, touching the secret counsel of God about the forbidden fruit, and so led her away from the Word; (namely, from Gods positive command) But Luther could not have called it a by-matter, touching the secret counsel of God, in case her act of eating the forbidden fruit had been a transgression of any part of the moral Law of nature; for no part or circumstance of that Law can be called a by-matter, neither was any part of the Law of nature hid from Eve in the secret counsel of God, as some circumstances about the transient Law of prohibition was.

SECT. III.

But Mr. Norton doth make the eating of the forbidden fruit to be a transgression of the moral Law of nature: for thus he saith, in pag. 189.

AS God at mount Sinai, after the Decalogue, gave the Judicial and Cere­monial Lawes, which were accessory commands, part of, and reducible thereunto, as conclusions to their principles: so God at the Creation having given the Law to Adam, by writing it in his heart, Gen. 1. 27. after that gave him this accessory command concerning the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2. 17. part of, and reducible thereunto, as a conclusion to its principle.

And from this comparative argument he concludes thus, in pag. 190.

Reply 1 The transgression then of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, was a branch of the same Law of works which was given to Adam, and was afterwards given by Moses; and so the punishment of Original sin infl [...]cted upon man therefore, did fall upon him for the breach of Moses Law, which was first given to Adam, and afterwards given by Moses.

The Law in the which Adam was created after the image and likeness of God, The arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature did no way depend on the moral Law of nature, as the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws did on he Decalogue. 1. The moral Law of nature. 2. The arbitra­ry Law of the Covenant of nature: and 3. The Law of g [...]ace, are three differing sorts of Laws, and therefore are no where co [...]tained under one and the same word Law: see more in Ch. 5. at Reply 3. (saith Mr. Clendon) may well be called the Law of nature, but not The Covenant of nature: there is a wide difference between them: For 1. That Law in the which A­dam was created, was no more but a meer Law, without any promise or threatning annexed thereunto : but 2. The other Law of the Covenant of nature was not created or written in Adams heart or minde, as the moral Law of nature was; but it was imposed upon him by God, as a meer arbitrary Law and transient Co­venant, for the tryal of his obedience o [...] disobedience, by one single or transi­ent act of eating; unto the which transient act God annexed both a promise and a threatning, respecting either the confirming or the depriving him of his concreated moral perfections: and 3. As touching that Law of the Decalogue, that was given to fallen man at mount Sinai, it doth differ exceedingly in the kind of it, both from the said Law of nature, and also from the said Covenant of nature, because it was given at mount Sinai to be the Law of the Covenant of grace and reconciliation to fallen man, with a differing promise, and with a differing threatning from those that were annexed to the transient Covenant of nature; namely, with a promise of an eternal life in Heaven to all believers, and with a threatning of an eternal death in Hell to all unbelievers, which promise and threatning was not annexed to the Covenant of nature. 4 They were founded upon differing grounds and reasons: fo [...] God gave his transient positive Law to innocent Adam, for the tryal of his obedience or disobedience, by one transient act of eating, to the end he might either confirm, or deprive him of his concreated moral perfections: but his positive Laws which he annex­ed to the Decalogue at mount Sinai, were given to them that were sinners, that they might be as a School-master unto Christ, that so they might be justified from their sins through faith in him, Gal. 4. 24. and consequently that they might be as rules to them for their sanctified walking, in relation to the Cove­nant of grace only: and so consequently there is not the like reason, why the said transient positive Law of the Covenant of nature should be accounted as a [Page 92] part of, or as reducible to the moral Law of Adams innocent nature, as there is why the Judicial and Ceremonial Lawes should belong to the Decalogue; and therefore this comparative argument is no better then a meer falacy, as I have also shewed in my former printed Reply, in pag. 6. and elsewhere.

5. The arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature was not given as an ac­cessory Law to the concreated Law of Adams nature; namely, not as any part of it, or as reducible to it, for then Adam should not have been created after the image and likeness of God in moral perfections; but Adam was created after the image & likeness of God in moral perfections, Gen. 1▪ 26, 27. therefore it must of necessity be granted, that the arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature was The concreated Law of Adams nature was so perseci after the image of God in moral per­fections, that he needed no posi­tive Law to be added thereto, to prompt him to any moral duty, and there­fore in his inno­cency he needed no Sabbath to prompt him to serve God bet­ter in one day then in another, but it was Gods arbitrary will to try his obedience to his arbitrary Law, by one transient act of eating only. not given to Adam, as an accessory Law to the perfect moral Law of his na­ture. It is most certain, saith Mr. [...]alk [...]r, ( [...]n his Dectrine of the Sabbath, p. 10.) that man in that estate was perfect with natural perfection at all times, equal­ly d [...]s [...]osed to obey God, and serve him, and to remember his creation, and to ho­nour his creatures: he needed no observation of any day, to put him in mind of any thing which he had before known, and which God had revealed to him: his memory was perfect, and (his understanding was perfect) he knew whatso­ever was needful for him to know or do in that present state; and his will was ready every moment to do whatsoever he knew to be right: he needed no sign to admonish him of his duty, or to make him to do it in due season: he did not labour or weary himself : every day was to him a day of delight and pleasure, of rest and recreation; and in every creature which he did see or meddle with, he did take notice of the wisdom and goodness of God: in a word, his whole life was a constant obedience, and 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 therein deny mans perfecti­on, and constant conformity to God in the state of innocency (therefore the Sabbath was not then instituted) for where one day is kept better then another, there is inequality and no constant uniformity in himself, nor conformity to Gods will.

Conclusions from the premises.

1. From hence it followes, that God did not give his transient arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature to Adam, as an accessory Law to the concrea­ted Law of his nature; for then it would have argued that he had wanted some moral perfection of nature in his creation : and thence it followes, that it is not reducible thereto as a conclusion to its principle, as I have also shewed in Chap. 1.

2. From hence it followes, thut though the moral Law of nature is compre­hended in the Decalogue, as it is now ordained to be a part of the Covenant of grace, yet it is no way fit to call the Decalogue the moral Law of nature, in such an abstracted sence as it was written in Adams heart; for it was written therein only as the meer Law of his nature, without any promise or threatning: but the moral Law of nature, as it is now comprehended in the Decalogue, is thereby made a part of the Covenant of grace: unto which there is annexed a promise of an eternal life in Heaven to all believers, and a threatning of an eternal death in Hell to all unbelievers; so that now the Law of nature is con­stituted to be an essential part of the Covenant of grace, for sanctified walking, [Page 93] and to shew sin in not walking after that rule, that so sinners might fly to Christ for pardon and forgiveness : therefore seeing God hath after this sort, and to this end joyned the Law of nature to the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue, let no man be so bold as to put them asunder, by separating the Law of nature from the Covenant of grace in the Decalogue, in that abstracted sence as it was given to Adam: nor yet let none be so bold as to conjoyn the Law of the Cove­nant of grace in the Decalogue with the arbitrary Law of the Covenant of na­ture, as Mr. Norton doth all along, to the utter confounding of his own, and of his Readers understanding, in the true sence of the said differing Laws and Covenants. Our Saviour doth tell us, that Whatsoever God ha [...]h joyned to­gether, let no man put asunder, Matth. 19. 6. But Mr. Nor [...]on doth break this rule of caution; for first he doth separate the Law of nature from the Cove­nant of grace in the Decalogue, and then he doth con joyn it to the arbitrary Law of the Covenant of nature, where God hath not conjoyned it.

3. Though Mr. Baxter doth hold the Covenant of nature to be dependant Mr. Baxter doth rightly make the De­calogue to dif­fer from the moral Law of Adams nature. upon the moral Law of nature, as Mr. Norton doth, yet he doth exceedingly disagree from Mr. Norton about the continuance of that Covenant, as I have shewed in Chap. 1. And 2. (Saith he) it is evident, that the obligation of the Law to believers (now) is exceeding different from the obligation of it to Adam before the promise, or the obligation on unbelievers, or the obligation of the Law of grace on the finally impenitent unbelievers: the Law (saith he) obli­ged Adam before the promise, without any remedy, existent, or revealed, &c. Ibidem saith he, the obligation of the moral Law on the believer for every new sin, is such as hath a perfect remedy at hand, even Christ and the promise, and he hath the Spirit within him to cause a renewed application: and (at best for ordinary sins of infirmity) it seems that the habit of faith and repentance is ever in him, as a condition which qualifieth him for present remission, and so the guilt is but transient, and the justified estate is permanent: nor is it such a guilt as makes an intercision in our adoption or union with Christ, or casteth us out of Gods favour, but only maketh remission necessary.

These differences doth Mr. Baxter make between the moral Law of nature, and the Decalogue, of which differences II have also spoken more in Chap. 6.

4. I have given divers instances in Chap. 5. at Reply 5. of divers arbi­trary and transient positive Laws and Covenants, which God made with par­ticular persons, and sometimes with the national Church of the Jews; which said Laws and Covenants have no dependance at all on the moral Law of na­ture: and by those examples the Reader may see, that there is the like reason for the like difference between the transient Law of the Covenant of nature, and the fixed moral Law of Adams nature. And I believe that Mr. Norton may much sooner find a knot in a bulrush, then find by any Scripture (that is right­ly interpreted) that the transient Law of the Covenant of nature was any way reducible to the fixed moral Law of Adams nature, in such sort as the Judici­al and Ceremonial Laws are to the Decalogue.

5. From hence it doth also follow, that Mr. Nortons said inference, in p. 190. cannot be true; namely, that the transgression of Adam in eating the forbid­den fruit, was a breach of the same Law of works, which was first given to [Page 94] Adam and afterwards given by Mos [...]s, and that therefore the punishment of Original sin did fall upon us for the breach of Moses Law, first given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses.

I have already shewed in Chap. 1. That the punishment of Original sin doth Reply 2. fall upon us for the breach of a meer arbitrary and transient positive Law, and not for the breach of any part of the moral Law of Adams concreated nature; and sundry eminent Divines do give their suffrage to this sence.

1. Mr. Wotton saith (de Reco [...]si. pec. par. 2. l. 1. c. 7.) It cannot be proved that there was any Covenant of eternal life (in heaven) betwixt God and Adam in regard either of his habitual justice which was bestowed on him in his creati­on, or of his actual obedience in keeping the Law; he doth cleerly affirm in these words, that the Covenant of nature made with Adam, had no dependance at all upon the moral Law of his nature.

2. He sheweth in John pag. 146. how we came to be infected with Original Adams eating of the forbidden fruit was no sin against any part of the moral Law of his na­ture, neither could he sin a­gainst it, until he had first sin­ned against the transient Law of the covenant of nature, and had thereby lost his moral per­fections. sin; and there he saith thus, I am perswaded that the ten Commandments is the onely rule of our actions, teaching what we should or should not do, and not the pattern of our nature, shewing what we ought to be; by these words it is cleer, that in his judgement, the moral Law of nature did not forbid Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge; no more then the ten Commandments, forbid the young propher to eat bread or to drink water at Bethel, in case he stood in need thereof to satisfie his hunger; But yet both the young Prophet and Adam also were for­bidden to eat by a mee [...] arbitrary and transient positive Law.

3. P. du Moulin saith (in his book against Armi [...]ianism) that Original sin is condemned by the Law, but not forbidden: he doth cleerly affirm in these words, that Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge, by the mo­ral Law of his nature, and therefore that he did not sin against that Law, when he did eat of the forbidden fruit; But yet he doth grant (as all good men do) that as soon as Adam had sinned against the transient Law of the Covenant of nature, he was deprived of Gods Image of moral perfections, and 2. That the corruption of nature did follow thereupon, and this corruption which is now commonly called Original sin is condemned by the Law, because it doth con­tinually draw mankind to the transgression of every branch of the moral Law.

4. Mr. Clendon saith (in his Ser. of Justifi. pig. 23.) obedience to the moral Law could not be the condition of the first Covenant, because Adam could not break the moral Law in the which he was created perfect, both in his un­derstanding, will, and affections, as all confess; his understanding did perfectly apprehend the nature of God, And did perfectly know the will of God in all things contained in the moral Law, and his will and affections did perfectly fol­low the dictates of his understanding; Therefore he could not sin directly a­gainst the moral Law; Adams holiness and righteousness was so connatural to him, that it was more delightful and pleasing to his nature, to observe every branch of the moral Law of his nature, then it is pleasing and delightful to our corrupt nature, to sin against every branch of the said moral Law; for sin is not a natural thing, as holy and righteous performances were to Adam, and therefore Adam in his pure nature could not so much as will a moral sin, un­til he was deprived of gods Image by his positive sin.

5. Mr. Warren saith (on Justifi. pag. 153.) Sin entred into the world by [Page 95] that positive Law forbidding Adam; and not by the moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared; In these words he doth cleerly deny that Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the same Law that was given by Moses.

But in case it be here objected that Mr. Warren hath some other meaning then I cite him for; I answer, though it should prove so, yet I say also, that which I cite him for, doth necessarily follow from his said assertion; and the like con­sequences I have drawn from some other writers in my former printed Reply, and I think it may be done conveniently, though the said writers may have not onely a differing but a contrary meaning also to what I infer from them, as it is well asserted by Mr. Gataker in his Answer to Mr. Walkers vindi­cation, pag. 18, 19.

But saith Master Norton in p. 109.

The law entred that sin might abound, Rom. 5. 20. i. c. That Adams sin might abound. Therefore (saith he) Adam, sin was committed a­gainst the Law of Moses: and to this purpose (saith he) Divines do shew how Adams sin was a violation of the most, yea of all the Com­mandments: and saith he in p. 256. It was an Universal sin, because in it was the violation of the whole Decalogue.

Reply 3 He takes but little heed to the true sence of the most Scriptures that he cites; I wonder why he cites Rom. 5. 20. to prove, That the Law (namely the Law of the Covenant of nature) entred, that Adams sin in eating the forbidden Rom. 5. 20. fruit might abound; he misunderstands the true sence of the word sin, and al­so the true sence of the word Law: for 1. The Apostle doth not speak of A­dams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit, but of the after habit of his sinning nature, which kind of sin is now commonly called original sin; and this origi­nal sin was not the immediate punishment of Adams first sin: but deprivation was the first immediate punishment; and 2. From thence consequently follow­ed corruption of nature, which is now called original sin.

2. He takes as little heed to the true sence of the word Law; for the Law that entred to make sin abound, is not meant of the positive Law of the tran­sient covenant of nature, for that Law had its entrance before his first sin, and it did forbid him to sin by his eating of the forbidden fruit: neither is it meant of the fixed moral Law of his concreated nature; for that Law was also en­tred into his heart and minde before his first sin: Therefore that Law that en­tred tomake sin abound, was the new Law of the Covenant of grace as it is contained in the ten Commandments: This is the onely Law that doth make sin abound to the conversion of souls: namely, it makes Original sin to abound, for Adam was no sooner deprived of Gods concreated image of moral perfecti­ons; But instantly his active will and affections could not otherwise choose but act irregularly, against every branch of the said moral Law; and from thence it came to pass (by Gods grace) that the new Law of the Covenant of grace and Reconciliation, was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. to make Origi­nal sin to abound, and this Covenant of grace and Reconciliation was also re­newed at mount Sinai, whereof the Decalogue was the compendium; and in this Sence it is, that the Law entred that Original sin might abound; But in the interval between Adam, first sin and punishment, the Covenant of nature [Page 96] was extinguished, and no new punishment for Original sin was threatned until after the new Covenant of grace, was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. And there­fore in that interval of time, no sin, nor no new punishment was imputed to A­dam, because there was no new Law declared, Rom. 5. 13. But as soon as the new Law of grace in Gen. 3. 15. did enter (which was so largely opened to Adam though we have but the brief heads of it) that it made Original sin to a­bound against every one of the ten Commandments, for the better humbling of Adam, and of all his fallen posterity, that so it might be as a School-master to Christ: this Exposition of the word Law, and of the word sin in Rom. 5. 20. is sound and good, and Mr. Nortons Exposition exceeding erroneous.

3. Though it be true that Divines do shew how Adams sin was a violation of It is no small error to affirm that Adams act in eating the forbidden fruit was a sin a­gainst all the ten Commandments. the most, yea of all the ten Commandments, when he did first eat of the forbidden fruit; yet it is no commendation of Mr. Nortons judgement to fol­low them in their error, seeing he might have found that many other learned Divines do affirm the contrary, some of which I have cited before at N ^o. 2. and elswhere; But in case Mr. Norton could produce a thousand Divines more on his side, yet in contradicting the truth they ought to be counted no bet­ter then misleading guides, that lead poor blinde souls into the ditch of error with themselves. I have seen an eminent minister cut an apple ass [...]nder cross the core, and then he hath shewed to such as were present ten spots about the core, and upon those ten spots, he hath taken an occasion to tell how Adams sin in eating the forbidden apple, did break all the ten Commandments: But though I have often seen this, and heard his exposition of Adams sinning against all the ten Commandments, yet I never thought his judgement to be sound in this; nor yet his carriage & discourse to be grave enough for such serious matters.

4. To affirm that Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of all the ten Commandments, is by consequence to affirm that Adams under­standing will, and affections, were not created after the likeness of God in moral perfections.

5. It is no small grief to me to read Mr. Nortons assertions (and others also) because they affirm that Adam had free-will to evil as well as to good; doubt­less this is a very gross error: for from thence it doth also follow, that God did not create Adam after his own Image and Likeness, in moral perfections; and see the next Reply at N ^o. 5, 6, 7.

6. The Apostle doth tell us that Adams sin was not a willing sin, much less was it a wilful sin; Paul doth tell us that it was no more but an unadvised Fall, or stumble in Rom. 5. 15, 17, 18. and those unadvised errors which Da­vid prayed against in Psal. 19. 12. are in the 70 rendered by Pauls Greek Rom. 5. 15, 17, 18. Adams sin was not a wilful sin, it was but an unadvised stumble through the deceit of Satan. word, and Kir [...]herus doth often render that greek word by (delictum) A small offence in Ezek. 3. 20. Ezek. 14. 11. Ezek. 18. 26. Dan. 4. 24. Dan. 6. 22. and I have already made it manifest in Sect. 2. That Adams sin in eating the forbid­den Fruit was brought to pass by the guile of the Devil, and thence it follows, it was no more but an unadvised stumble, and not willful sin; and therefore to hold so as Mr. Norton doth will occasion sundry great errors in Divinity.

But saith Mr. Norton in p. 63.

We in Adam sinned in soul properly.

Reply 4 I have already made a sufficient Reply to this assertion just before, and [Page 97] also in my former Printed Reply in p. 8. But I will repe [...]t some t [...]ngs, and adde some other new considerations for the fuller confutat [...]on of it.

1. If we sinned in soul properly, in Eve, first desire to eat the [...] fruit; then she sinned in soul before her act of eating, and then her [...]ct of eating was not her first sin, as usually it is esteemed and called; and indeed as the plain letter of the prohibition doth affirm; for the letter of the prohibition saith thus, in the day thou Eatest thereof (and not in the day thou Desirest to Ea [...], &c.) and thence it follows that we did not sin in soul properly in Eves desire to eat.

2. It is also evident that Eve had a liberty of power given her by the moral Law of her nature to eat of that fruit, because she saw by her cl [...]er reason, that it was by creation good for food, and yet it became unlawful to be eaten by Gods arbitrary prohibition onely; But as soon as she was perswaded by the good An­gel (as she thought it was) to eat of it for her best good, she did without any scruple take and eat, and then she did also stretch out her hand and gave thereof unto Adam, and he did eat; and then and not tell, then the sin against the Co­venant of nature was finished, and then and not till then, the threatned Spiri­tual death was executed. 1. By deprivation of their concreated life of Gods Image in moral perfections, and 2. Then came in corruption of nature a­gainst every branch of t [...]eir concreated moral perfections; and after th [...]s sort was the young prophet deceived by the old prophet; for the old prophet per­swaded the young prophet, that the former prohibition, (not to eat any bread or drink any water at Bethel) was taken off, and thereupon he was perswaded to eat. But it was to the loss of his natural life,) 1. K [...]g. 13. 15, &c. so in like sort was Eve deceived by the good Angel (as she tho [...]ght it was) that God had sent to revers [...] [...]s former prohibition, and to perswade her to eat of it for her best good, namely to make her more wise in the knowledge of Gods [...]e­cret will; and th [...]s the Devil did sute his temptation to her natural desire: for it is the property of nature to desi [...]e that which is best for it, especially such things as have an operation by Gods appointment, to instruct the understand­ing in Gods secret will; and 2. As God had created sences in her, to per­ceive, and sensitive motions to desire such food as might be most beneficial to nature, so her desire after such things was sutable to her nature, and no sin; and to this effect doth P. Martyr s [...]eak (in Com. pl. p. 217.) Man (saith he) in himself had Originals, whereby he might desire things pleasant and commodi­ous, but not against Reason and the word of God; & saith he in his Ser: on Phil. 2. Christ might be delighted with sweet and delicate meats, because they were agreeable to nature, without any self-love, for the love of pleasure, seeking his own; and there was not any ill-affection therein, as Adam. might have done in his first estate, but so cannot we do (saith he) because we are corrupted with ill-affections; and to this effect speaks Dr. J [...]so [...] in his 8. book on the Creed. p. 73, 74. And to this effect doth Dr. [...]llet speak (in Rom. p. 339.) man in paradise (saith he) had natural concupiscence, but without disorder or Re­bellion against the mind.

I confess it doth sometimes amaze me to read the said assertion of Mr. Nor­tons in sundry eminent Divines: Dr. Ames saith in Medul. l. 1. c. 11. The first motion or degree of Adams disobedience did necessarily go before the out­ward [Page 98] act of Eating, so that (sa [...]th he) it may truly be said that Adam was a sinner before he had finished the outward act of eating; whence it is (saith he) that the very desire which Eve was carried with towards the forbidden fruit, doth seem to be noted as some degree of her sin; and other Authors say, That Adams soul was the Agent, and that his body was but the instrument, which the soul useth, as in all sins; In case they had sa [...]d in all moral sins, they had hit the na [...]l, but because they mean it of sins against an arbitrary Law, which pro­hibits but the act, they have mist the nail; as I have opened the matter in ma­ny positive Laws in Ch. 5. Reply 5.

3. The Fundamental ground of Mr. Nortons error, lies chiefly in not ma­king a right distinction, between the two sorts of Laws that were given to Adam: for the Transient Law of the Covenant of nature, had no relation at all to the fixed moral Law of his concreated nature; The transient Law of the Covenant of nature was constituted onely for the tryal of his obedience, by one meer out­ward bodily act onely, of which kind of transient Laws and Covenants, See Chap. 5. at Reply 5. But the fixed and concreated moral Law of his nature had its seat in his heart and mind in the time of his creation, and therefore it doth A right distin­ction must be mad [...] between the moral Law of nature, and the transie it Law of the Co­venant of na­ture, to preserve expositers from many errors. reach to the affections of the soul in the first place, as the agent, and then to the body as it is the souls instrument; so that the very first desire of the soul of any thing that is contrary to the Law of nature is a sin, though the body act it not. This distinction between these two sorts of Laws is of necessary use to pre­serve expositers from many great errors.

4. As the said distinction between the two sorts of Laws, that were given to Adam is necessarily to be observed, so also it is as necessary to observe a right distinction between the several sorts of transient positive Laws among them­selves, 1. Because many of them were typical, an [...] [...]ere ordained to have a necessary dependance upon the Decalogue, as it was given for a Covenant of grace and reconciliation at mount Sinai; and in that respect God did com­mand his national Church to observe them, by the obedience of faith in Christ; and therefore all those that did observe those typical Laws, but with meer bo­dily exercise without faith in Christ, were guilty of soul sin by omission, because they wanted faith in their souls to observe them, according to the true intent of Gods command; but on the other hand, God ordained some other transient positive Laws but in relation to some one bodily act onely; as I have instanced in Chap. 5. Reply 5.

5. It is well observed by Mr. Clendon (in his Ser. on Justi. p. 23.) That the liberty of Adams will did consist in this, That he should not will any moral evil; and herein he was created after the Image of God (who is the most perfect agent) and therefore doth always necessarily will that, and onely that which is good; but about things indifferent in their own nature Adam had a liberty to will or nill, to choose or refuse.

6. P. Martyr doth also affirm (in Com. pl. p. 187.) that the will from the time of its first creation in Adam was not evil; and saith he, in pag. 191. our motion of turning away from God is proper to our will as it is now corrupted, and not as it was at the first instituted by God, and saith he, in pag. 195. Sin dependeth not on the will and affections as they were made by God, but as they are now corrupted; and from hence it follows that the Law of the tran­sient [Page 99] covenant of nature was no part of the moral Law of nature, because A­dam might will to eat of the forbidden fruit, as it was food without sin, but he could not so much as will any thing against the moral Law of his nature without sin; 2. From hence it doth also follow that Eve did not sin in soul properly, when she saw the tree was good for food and a desire to her eyes.

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 [Page 115] 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 engra­ven 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 Com­mandments 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 sin­ners justification, as Mr. Norton doth all along, as the chief mark of the ten com­mandments; though it is indeed the chief mark of his erroneous judge­ment.

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, be­cause 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.

[Page 116] 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 Cove­nant That ki [...]d of Law that is cal­led posi [...]ive may thus be descri­bed, i [...] is not an inbred, imprint­ed, or infused Law into the heart of man, as the moral Law of nature was into Adams heart; neither is it infused in­to the heart of man by the Law of grace; but it is imposed only, by the external command of the Supreme Law­giver; and so it hath t [...]e name positive, for the external impo­sition or const­tution of the Lawgiver; and not from the in­ternal Law of nature. God made ma­ny positive Laws and Co­vena [...]ts for the tryal of obedi­ence by▪ some particular bo­dily acts o [...]ly. 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 se­veral 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 Co­venant 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 con­trary to the literal sense of Gods moral Laws.

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 justifi­cation? 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 per­formance whereof received by faith, we are justified evangelically.’

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

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 ne­gative part) are far from the true sence of the blessed Scriptures; and there­fore they may most fitly be called two master errours, or two grand mis­leading errours in the body of Divinity.

1. I will examine the affirmative part, viz. that the Covenant made with The Covenant made with A­dam was not given to him as a Law of works in the plural. 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 Co­venant [Page 134] 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 Spiri­tual 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 conse­quently 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 sa­tisfaction 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 asserti­on; namely, that the observation of the Levitical worship cannot espe­cially 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.

[Page 135] 2. According to the superstitious sence of the false Apostles.

1. The Lev [...]tical worship, according to the true intent of Moses Law at There is no o­ther 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. mount Sinai, is truly called a Law of works in the extrinsecal sence of the Co­venant of grace; and in that respect the said Law of works may well be cal­led 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 ceremoni­al 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 command­ments 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 ho­ly, 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 im­posed 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 Levit. 19. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 14, 15. 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 Jeho­vah, 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 com­mandments 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 un­clean [Page 136] 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 acci­dent: for when their bodies were defiled with ceremonial sins, they might not No [...] that were defiled with ce­remonial sins might presume to [...]ome into Gods holy Tem­ple, under the penalty of cut­ting 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 cere­monial sins to all the national Church, if they did but observe the outward works of the Levitical Law, Ex opere ope­rato. 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. justifi­ed 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 re­medy; 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 threat­ned 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 te­stifie, Joh [...] 11. 55. Lev. 11. 43, 44. Numb. 8. 6, 7, &c. 2 Chro [...]. 23. 19. 2 Chro [...]. 30. 18, 19.

4. The Jews were called a holy na­tion, in relation to their typical church-holiness, as well as in relation to the true typified [...]o­liness which be­lievers only had among them. 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 cal­led 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 ju­stified 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 ceremoni­al 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 [Page 137] days before, for their more holy observat [...]on of the new Moon feast, which be­gan but three days before this conference with David; and they must of neces­sity 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 Trea­tise 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, see­ing they had continued in Davids company from that time till now: his mean­ing 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 law­fully 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. It was in rela­tion to the Law of works, that Jesus Christ ordained many lawful things at mount Sinai to be ceremoni­ally sinful, to the defiling of their bodies, (though not to the defiling of their consci­ence) that so they might be justified there­from by the ty­pical works of the Law.

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 mo­ral 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 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 mo­rally to believe in Christ, as the only condition to be performed on their part, for their souls justificati­on from their moral sins. [Page 138] ceremonial sin of uncleanness, so the circumcising of the heart by sound re­pentance, 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 ho­ly 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 (un­der 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 cere­monial 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 ceremoni­ally (but not morally) sinful, to the defiling of their bodies for many days to­gether, 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 pur­gings 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 Tem­ple, under the foresaid penalty, until their bodies were first purified, i.e. justi­fied 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 Tem­ple, 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 [Page 139] 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 ju­stified 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 ju­stifying of the bodies of the national Church from their ceremonial sins, was The work of the Law for their bodily justification from ceremoni­al sins descri­bed. The command to wash gar­ments did al­ways include a command to wash the body, for the effecting of their bodily justification from certain ce­remonial sin [...]. 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 command­ed that they should wash their garments for the effecting of their bodily justi­fication, 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 [Page 140] 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 ma­ny years, and have no appearance of any uncleanness; yet if they be not ba­ptized, (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 atone­ment 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 sprink­ling 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 The condition that was requi­red to be per­formed 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. 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 justifi­cation 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 [Page 141] 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 ce­remonial sins) to the purifying of the flesh (i.e. to the justifying of the bo­dy from their said ceremonial sins,) Eb [...]. 9. 13. And so from this typical justi­fication, 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 bo­dily 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 like­ness of a notorious sinful malefactor; but Gods intent in giving Sathan t [...]at li­berty 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 be­lievers.

4. The same Apostle doth also tell us; That by Christ, all that believe, are Rom. 8. 3. Act. 13. 39. Ebr. 9. 1, 10. 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 justi­fication 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 ordinan­ces, 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 purifica­tion, 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 [Page 142] 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 Christ is the spi­rit 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. 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 con­vince 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 con­cerned the external part of man onely, and therefore could not give full satis­faction to the conscience; And saith he, these external things are fo [...]r in num­ber, 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 them­selves in water, Lev. 15. 6. &c. Lev. 6. 27, 28. Num. 19. 13, &c. 4. Or­dinances called also justifications of the flesh, in vers. 10. and these ordinances are applied to (positive) Commandments, which are st [...]led carnal command­ments, in Ebr. 7. 16. Consisting of outward, Earthly, alterable, and momen­tary 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 cal­led 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 ty­pified thereby were accomplished by Christ; and thus these typical justificati­ons 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 an­swerable 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 The Ancient Rab. did look into the spiritu­al 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. 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 for­giveness [Page 143] 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 clean­ness 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 ho­ly, 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 testimo­nies 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.

[Page 144] 10. They rested not in the letter of the Law, but looked also into the spi­ritual 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 Thal­mud, in whatsoever a Prophet biddeth thee transgress, obey him, sa [...]ing in ido­latry; 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 pat­tern 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 sin­ners 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 gi­ven 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 justi­fied 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 cir­cumcision, 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 cere­monial sins ex opere operato, without any faith in Christ at all. But the Apo­stle 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 Testa­ment; 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 per­fections, to be continued for ever, in the sweet contents of an earthly pa­radise.

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 re­quired no more but one work, or act of eating of the tree of life, for the fulfil­ling 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 spi­ritual death; and thereupon that Covenant was for ever after extin­guished.