Reason of Man's Tenure and Subjection Sixthly As we may suppose the Forbidden Tree to have stood in the midst of the Garden from the Ninth Verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis so a Tree so placed was by its very Situation a very fit and proper Thing to be made use of for such a purpose because being in some measure at least equidistant from the Boundaries of the general Grant it must for that Reason be most likely to present it self to Adam's View to whatever Part of the Garden he moved and by so doing must constantly or at least frequently put him in mind of the Nature of his Tenure viz. that he held it of him who had setled him in the Possession and Use of all the rest So that as the Law is Positive if we only look upon the express Words of it so it is Moral if we consider what is implied in it And therefore as the immediate and direct Transgression of the Law was the eating the forbidden Fruit so the couched Immorality of such Transgression was an Usurpation upon God's Prerogative in this lower World and an Encroachment upon the reserved Rights and Demeans of the Supreme Lord. The Transgression of the express Law then was a Sin against God's Command But the Transgression of the implied Law was a Sin against his Natural and Supreme Right The first was a Sin because it did what God had expresly forbid The last was implicitly forbid because it was a Sin and therefore was a Sin tho' God did not expresly forbid it The first was therefore only unlawful because forbidden The last was unlawful in it self To sum up all in a few Words Tho' the Designation of the particular Thing viz. the Tree in the midst of the Garden was Arbitrary and therefore Positive yet the Designation of Something was as Just and Wise so I may add Moral and Necessary too at least so far as it is so that God's Supreme Right ought to be asserted and owned For so far forth the Prohibition given to Man of eating of the Fruit of any Tree marked out or of medling with any Thing else is grounded upon the Antecedent and Eternal Rules of Reason and Justice that is of Morality And therefore tho' the express Prohibition of the Law be only Positive yet the Reason of the Prohibition is at least so far Moral as it is so That Man by some Means or other should acknowledge God to be his Supreme Lord and that he receives from him whatsoever he enjoys and that if God do expresly appoint the Way and Means of his so doing he ought to do it by the Way and Means so appointed And I therefore say expresly because so far as the Words of the Law under our present Consideration do go it is notorious that what is expresly prohibited by it is only Arbitrary and Positive But that the Morality of the Prohibition is not expressed but at the most but couched and implied By what has been spoken we may learn 1. That the Sin expresly prohibited by the Law may therefore truly be esteemed a lesser Sin because it is only a Sin against a Positive Law For such a Sin is a Sin only against God's Authority Whereas a Sin that contains a Natural Immorality in it if I may so speak is a Sin both against God's Authority and against his Purity and Holiness too 2. That the express Penalty of the Law is only a Punishment threatned against the Transgression of the express Prohibition of the Law For it does not look like Justice to assign an express Punishment in the Law for the Transgression of any Thing which is not expresly contained in the Law 3. Such Punishment so threatned against the Transgression of the express Law is express absolute and peremtory Adam then did therefore fatally suffer the Penalty of the Law because he sinned against an express Prohibition which was ratified by an absolute peremptory and express Threat For God may therefore be thought to be obliged by his Truth to punish Adam's Transgression according to the express Threat of the Law because he had passed his more solemn Word that he would do so And as he was obliged by his Truth to punish it as the Law had threatned so he was obliged to punish it because it was a Sin For so undoubtedly is the Transgression of any of God's Laws From hence it may be concluded that we all die a temporal Death for Adam's Sin For as we were in the Loins of him in the day of his Transgression so God has not by any other Law assigned an Universal Mortality as the Punishment of Sin And so speaks the Scripture In Adam all died 4. As the Moral Law couched in the Positive Law is not express so neither is there any express Punishment threatned to the Transgression of such couched Law For while Man was in a State of Innocence as there was no need that God should prescribe him any express Law to guide him in such Things which were in their own Nature good because the dictates of his own reason were of themselves sufficient for such his guidance for Moral Goodness is nothing else but the Dictates of right Reason employed about the Actions of Rational Creatures So for the same Reason there was no occasion to threaten him in that Case with any express Penalty because the threatning of an express Penalty antecedent to the Commission of the Crime can only be proper there where there is an express Law commanding a Duty Whereas Man had never by his Reason known that it had been a Sin to eat of any Fruit which kindly offer'd it self to his View and natural Inclinations if such Fruit had not been forbidden by some express Law And therefore for the same Reason that it was necessary that such Law should be express it was necessary that the Penalty of such Law should be express too 5. As the Sin against the Moral Duty which is only implied in the Law were that Duty supposed to be express Law is greater than the Sin against the express but Positive Law so were there a Punishment to be expresly assigned to such Sin it must in Justice be greater than the Punishment assigned to the less Sin that is to the Transgression of the Positive Law The Punishment therefore assigned by the express Law to the Transgression of it being only Death and that too as appears from the Nineteenth Verse of the Third Chapter of Genesis a temporal Death our Reason and that natural Sense we have of the Proportions of Justice will assure us that the Law which forbids a greater Sin than this Law does must in Reason and Equity assign an heavier Punishment to such greater Sin 6. Such heavier Punishment must suppose a Resurrection For a greater Punishment than Death cannot therefore be inflicted upon a dead Man without a Resurrection because no Punishment at all can be so inflicted upon him For where there is no Sensation
that know that they all came from one single Fountain that is from one single Man and so that they are all but so many Rivulets from that Fountain And when moreover we are assured that our Saviour is One of those Rivulets For tho' our Saviour was only to be made of the Woman yet because the Woman was made out of the Man therefore our Saviour did by the Woman derive from the same one single Person with the rest of Mankind I say when we consider all this methinks it is no hard matter to conceive that God himself does in his Word lay the Ground-work of Man's Redemption by a Saviour if I may be allowed so to word my self in that near and intimate Relation which our Saviour by becoming Man has to all Mankind besides and that the Intimacy of such Relation consists in this that the Saviour and all Mankind do derive from one single and common Fountain And hence we are told in one Place that as by Man came Death there is the Sin of Adam and the Wages of such Sin by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead there is the Redemption of our Saviour and his Purchase And more expresly still to our present Purpose speaks the same Apostle in the same Chapter the Fifteenth of the First to the Corinthians For as in Adam all died so in Christ shall all be made alive And to the same purpose again in the Fifth to the Romans and the Eighteenth Verse Therefore as by the Offence of one Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation even so by the Righteousness of one the Free-gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life In all which Texts and several others that might be named it is notorious that the Redemption of Mankind is so ascribed to the second Adam the Man Christ Jesus as the Sin and Death of Mankind is ascribed to the first Man Adam And I do not at all question but that those Hints which the Scriptures do frequently offer to us of our Saviour's taking the Humane Nature in order to our Redemption of his taking Part of the same Flesh and Blood with us of his being our Brother and the like I say I do not at all question but that when seriously considered they may mightily assist and facilitate both our Conceptions and Belief of the Wisdom Justice Reasonableness and Congruity of our Saviour's Incarnation Death Resurrection in one Word of that Redemption which he by being made one with Mankind by taking their Nature upon himself has purchased form them And may mightily conduce to the Removing of those Difficulties which the Enemies of the Cross of Christ have thrown as so many Stumbling-blocks in the Way of plain and honest Christians 4. The Wisdom Justice Reasonableness and Congruity of our Saviour's Incarnation in order to his Purchase of Man's Redemption does yet farther appear in that by becoming Man he put himself into a Capacity of suffering Death that is of suffering that Punishment which the Law had denounced against those that should transgress it For it is a gross Mistake and does indeed bring a Scandal upon God's Veracity to affirm That he threatens greater Vengeance in any Law before the Transgression of it than he will execute after the Transgression that so he may the more effectually prevent such Transgression For God never yet threatned any peremptory and unconditional Punishment in any Law which he has not or when the Time comes he will not as certainly execute In the Day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die says God The Threatning we see is peremptory and the Execution we find is so too and therefore all Sinners die And I cannot in the least doubt but that for the same Reason an eternal Punishment will be the certain Vengeance upon a final Impenitence But that is not so direct to my present purpose and therefore here I pass it by But to confirm what I am now upon I say that God does not pardon the Death threatned in his Law against Sin no not in Consideration of the Death of our Saviour and therefore notwithstanding his Death and that too in our stead we see that all Men and even those who hope for Salvation by such his Death do yet die What therefore our Saviour in this Case has puchased for us is not a Freedom but a Release from Death And therefore that Redemption from Death which is the Purchase of his Blood is to be accomplished after we have been dead by a Resurrection A Resurrection then is to make good the Purchase of his Death and therefore his Death purchased for us not a Freedom but a Release from our Death by such Resurrection Now as his Death was necessary for such a Purchase so his Incarnation was necessary in order to such his Death And he was therefore made of the same Blood with all Mankind that by shedding that Blood for Mankind he might after his own Resurrection restore the Lives of all Men which had been forfeited by Adam's Transgression So that as his Death was the meritorious Expiation of Sin and as a Resurrection is the Fruit and Effect of such his Expiation So his Incarnation was a necessary Forerunner of such his Death and therefore before he could possibly die for Man and so purchase a Redemption of Man from Death it was agreeable to the Laws of Wisdom Justice and Reason that he should become Man himself But then how his Death came to be of so valuable a Price as to make so glorious a Purchase we must leave to farther Enquiry For by that it will appear that as it was necessary that he should die the Death of a Man so it was necessary that such his Humanity should be united to the Divinity And by both it will appear that God was manifested in the Flesh to destroy the Works of the Devil and that therefore when the Scriptures tell us so much they tell us no more than what is agreeable to Wisdom Justice and Reason CHAP. VI. The Divinity of the Son of God necessary for the Expitation of Man's Sin as well as his Humanity Some Doctrinal Inferences A general Proof That as our Saviour did actually die so that he might justly die for the Expiation of Sin HAving therefore seen that our Lord Jesus Christ was qualified by his Incarnation to make an Expiation for Sin by the Sacrifice of himself and that such his Qualification is agreeable to the Laws of Justice and to the Rules of Reason and Wisdom Our next Enquiry must be How such his Sacrifice came to be of such a Value as to be justly sufficient to make good such an Expiation For because the Death of an Innocent Man if he be no more than a mere Man is but the Death of a Creature and because no Creature can by its Punishment in another Creature 's stead expiate the Sin of that other Creature for if it could then a Creature might by its own Punishment
inseparably by Law belong to one that it cannot but do so without Breach of the Law yet even such a Thing shall by Act of Law be so imputed to another that that other shall receive the Benefits or suffer the Mischiefs which legally flow from such Thing as if the Thing it self which was the Cause of such Benefits or Mischiefs had been his own And such are the Actions of some Persons when they stand in some sorts of Relations to other Persons And to come up a little closer to our present Design it is a known Practice in our own Law the Law of England that in some if not many Cases the Actions of the Wife shall be so reckoned the Actions of the Husband and in some Cases the Actions of the Husband shall be so reckoned the Actions of the Wise that they shall and that too by Law receive the Advantages and suffer the Disadvantages of each others Actions And I do the rather instance in this Case tho' several others might be offered because we know that the Scriptures do expresly tell us that the Saviour is so the Head of his Body the Church as the Husband is the Head of the Wife These Things being laid down in order to make plain what is now to follow 1. It is to be observed in the first place That the whole Transaction of Man's Salvation is managed by way of Covenant that is it is managed in a judicial or legal not in a natural way This is as notorious as it is that the Transaction is carried on by mutual Obligations of the respective Parties engaged by Promises by Rewards by Punishments and the like It appears likewise by the Sacraments which are legal not natural Conveyances of those Graces or Blessings of which they are the Pledges For Water in Baptism does not naturally wash away Sin nor are the Bread and Wine natural Seals or Ratification of the Covenant in the Sacrament They only give us a Title to the Benefits of it as the Delivery of a Deed a Turf or a Wand do to an Estate That is they are only legal Ways of Conveyance and therefore do loudly proclaim a Covenant 2. The Transaction of Man's Salvation being managed by way of Covenant that is in a legal or judicial not in a natural way tho' it be granted that the Obedience of one Man cannot naturally be made over to another yet it will not from thence follow that it may not therefore be made over judicially or in a legal way Nay by what has been said already it is notorious that it may be so made over And therefore besides the Instance already offered between an Husband and Wife which will in the Scripture-Account as well belong to our Saviour and Believers it is in some Cases the agreed Sense of Mankind that he who does not hinder the bad Action of another when it is in his Power at least when it is his Business and so ought to be his Care so to do by not hindring it does in Law make such bad Action his own That is the Action in Law shall be so imputed to him as if he himself had done it and he shall accordingly be obnoxious to the just and legal Consequences of it And then if the ill Action of one Man may in a judicial way be justly imputed to another and so be rated as that others then there can be no good Reason why the good Actions of one Man may not be justly so rated and imputed likewise All therefore that the Objection offers is That one Man's Action be that Action Obedience or what it will cannot naturally become or be made the Action of any other Man But that it may not legally or judicially become so to all Intents and Purposes of Law whether of Rewards or Punishments as it does not affirm it so should it do so it may for the Reasons offered be truly denied because in deed and truth it is false But we shall have occasion to speak more to this Matter hereafter and therefore shall not pursue it any further here Only one Remark I would leave upon it and that is this That it is too frequent a Practice when Men discourse upon Points of Christian Doctrine to treat of such Points rather as Natural Philosophers than as Lawyers or Divines That is that I may speak my Meaning as plain as I can they fall upon the Nature of the Things of which they discourse and so argue from their Natural Properties Qualities and Powers and from thence draw such Conclusions which tho' they call them Theological yet have nothing to do with Divinity or indeed with the Christian Religion Whereas they should treat of those Things which are concerned in Religion in a legal and judicial way They should examine what Relation and Regard they have to that Holy Covenant how far they agree with or differ from the Design and Purport of it and by consequence what Share they have or what Influence they may or may not have for the hindring or promoting or accomplishing its Designs The Case under our present Consideration will make my Meaning still plainer For they who tell us that our Saviour's Obedience cannot be made over to Man because it consists in Action and because one Man's Action cannot in the Nature of the Thing be made over to another do only discourse of his Obedience in a natural Sense that is as Natural-Philosophers but do not discourse of it in a moral or judicial Sense that is as Divines or Lawyers And because they do not therefore they start from the Business of Religion and so instead of discoursing of the Christian Covenant they give us a Lecture concerning the Nature and Properties of Animal Motions and Powers And in the mean time overlook that that is or at least should be their Business which is the legal or judicial Consideration of such Obedience as what Relation it has to the Law what Influence it has by Law upon the Person whose Obedience it is or upon others how far the Merit and Desert of it may go and the like And to come close to the Business we have been all this while upon Because Imputation is an Act of Law and not of Nature to undertake to overthrow the Possibility of it by the Laws and Rules of natural Motions or Actions is much the same thing as to attempt to open a difficult Place of Scripture with a Knife or a Saw The Things are of different Natures and there is no Congruity in the Application of the one for the Resolution of the other And I am very well satisfied that the Church of Christ had never been troubled with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation if the Romish Priests had never heard of nor read either Aristotle or his Commentators concerning Substance and Accident It was the jumbling of his Natural Philosophy and Religion together that produced the Monster Nay which is yet something more had they been trained up in any