The covenant of life opened, or, A treatise of the covenant of grace

True, but does the Lords soul hate sin naturally, as he loves himself and by necessity of his essential justice as contradistinguished from his immutability, and his truth and faithfulness, according to which attributes, he decreed and said, that the soul that sins shall die, and (he that eats shall die) and he cannot change, nor alter, what he hath decreed, and cannot but be true in his threatenings. But the Question is, whether (laying aside the respect of Gods unchangeableness and truth) there be such a connection internal, between eating and dying, or between eating forbidden of God, and punishment, as God cannot be equally and essentially just, nor can he be God, except he punish forbidden eating; for sure eating of that fruit, is not of its nature, sin, but it is sin, from the only forbidding will of God, for the Lord had been no less essentially just, had he commanded Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Ergo, it is punished from the forbidding will of God, for say that to be punishable or to be punished be essential to sin, if eating of such fruit be sin from the forbidding will of God, the essence thereof must be from the same forbidding will, then must it follow that God hates not all sin, by necessity of nature; And that he hates such eating only conditionally, if he forbid it; but […] from his mere free will, did forbid it. So the Question shall not be, whether God in justice, punished Christ, and made him a propitiation to declare his justice, but what the relative justice ad extra is, by which God punisheth sin, and whether God should leave off to be God (hallowed be his high Name) if he should not make first penal Laws to threaten all sin with punishment. 2. Whether he should not be God, if he should not punish all sin, even the eating of the forbidden tree.¹ 3. What can be said that is more weak and watery, to enervate the glory of free Grace, then to confound the Glory of Gods Justice in giving Christ to die for sinners, and this glory as manifested and declared: For sure the manifestation of that glory is a work of free Grace, and most free, if God do any thing freely, he must freely, and by no necessity of Justice, Mercy, Omnipotency, Patience, Grace, &c.

True, but does the Lords soul hate sin naturally, as he loves himself and by necessity of his essentiall justice as contradistinguished from his immutabilitie, and his truth and faithfulnesse, according to which attributes, he decreed and said, that the soul that sins shall die, and (he that eats shall die) and he cannot change, nor alter, what he hath decreed, and cannot but be true in his threatnings. But the Question is, whether (laying aside the respect of Gods unchangeablenesse and truth) there be such a connexion internall, between eating and dying, or between eating forbidden of God, and punishment, as God cannot be equally and essentially just, nor can he be God, except he punish forbidden eating; for sure eating of that fruit, is not of its nature, sin, but it is sin, from the only forbidding will of God, for the Lord had been no lesse essentially just, had he commanded Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Ergo, it is punished from the forbidding will of God, for say that to be punishable or to be punished be essentiall to sin, if eating of such fruit be sin from the forbidding will of God, the essence thereof must be from the same forbidding will, then must it follow that God hates not all sin, by necessity of nature; And that he hates such eating only conditionally, if he forbid it; but from his meer free will, did forbid it. So the Question shall not be, whether God in justice, punished Christ, and made him a propitiation to declare his justice, but what the relative justice ad extra is, by which God punisheth sin, and whether God should leave off to be God (hallowed be his high Name) if he should not make first penall Laws to threaten all sin with punishment. 2. Whether he should not be God, if he should not punish all sin, even the eating of the forbidden tree.