willingness to proceed against the wishes of so large a minority.

In this emergency Mr. Norton came forward and united the breach. Coming over from Cambridge with the whole synod, he preached the Thursday lecture in the Boston Church from Exodus 4: 27, where the history tells how Aaron met Moses in the mount of God, and kissed him. He showed, that the ecclesiastical power should meet the reasonable requirements of the civil authority; and the ministry co-operate with the magistracy, when called upon by the latter, in deliberating for the public peace and welfare. He explained, that the synod had no power, except to consult, declare and advise : and that it claimed no judicial or coercive authority. Mr. Norton's suggestions were so well taken, that the dispute was ended; and Boston Church sent her pastor, and teacher, and three lay delegates to the synod. When the result of the synod was declared, Mr. Norton used all his influence to procure its acceptance with the churches. The Platform having thus received a full ecclesiastical sanction, was then presented to the General Court, which gave it what further sanction the civil government had to bestow. The Cambridge Platform was highly approved by many of the most eminent divines

across the water.

Richard Baxter, one of the

holiest and most studious men that ever lived, but a few months before his death, wrote to Dr. Increase Mather;-"I am as zealous a lover of the New England Churches as any man, according to Mr. Norton's and the synod's model."

In 1646, the colony stood in need of agents to attend to its affairs in England and Governor Winthrop and Mr. Norton were selected for that business. But the matter was dropped from the fear, that if they once got to England, it being the time of the civil wars, these eminent men would be detained there in public employments, to the great detriment of the colony which could not spare them. It was an honorable appointment, showing the great trust reposed in them: and the recall of it was still more honorable to them, as showing the fear that was felt of losing them.

A Mr. Pyncheon had written a dialogue, which went against the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness for the justification of the believer. The General Court was zealous for the orthodoxy they sincerely loved, and fearful that Christians abroad might be led by Pyncheon's book to doubt whether their New England brethren were sound in the faith. The Court VOL. II. 18

called upon Mr. Norton, as "a ready scribe," on such occasions, to confute the objectionable book. He accordingly prepared a confutation of it, in which he discusses Christ's "active and passive righteousness, and the imputation thereof." This reply was presented to the Court in December, 1651, when it was read to the offender, who appears not to have yielded his objectionable opinions. However the work was sent to England, and printed at the colony's charge. It contains a dedication to the General Court of the Massachusetts Colony, which says;—" You have been among the first of magistrates which have approved and practiced the Congregational way no small favor from God, nor honor to yourselves with the generation to come."

Mr. Norton's last work of importance was published at London, in 1654, under the title of "The Orthodox Evangelist." It is a comprehensive system of divinity, written in the taste of the times, full of careful divisions, removing objections, abounding in texts of Scripture, and arraying a host of theological authorities. His style is that of a man who thinks nothing about it, in his anxiety to make each link in the chain of his argument as strong as possible. No time was spent in filing and polishing. As a soldier of the cross, he was not decked like a "carpet

knight," to make a figure in a pompous procession, or a courtly levee. As his friend, John Cotton said of him, he arrayed himself not for the parade ground, but for the battle-field. "There was a noble negligence in his style; for his great mind could not stoop to the affected eloquence of words."

The doctrines which Mr. Norton chiefly taught from the pulpit, are systematically presented in his Orthodox Evangelist. In this work, he treats of the being and perfections of the Triune God, with all imaginable nicety and subtlety of distinction and inference. The divine and human agency, and the doctrine of decrees, are discussed with great ability; and all conceivable objections are stated and removed. It is an abbreviation, though long enough, of the whole controversy relative to these points. The reader can hardly fail to be struck with the reflection, that there has been but little progress in this "high argument;" wherein almost every thing, which can now be said upon either side, was anticipated so long ago. Mr. Norton maintains, that the will of God is the cause of all other causes. "Second causes are the effects of the First Cause. The will of man is an instrument disposed, and determined unto its action, according to the decree of God. The

rod is not more subordinate unto the hand of the smiter, nor the staff to the hand of the mover, nor the axe to the hand of the hewer, nor the saw to him that shaketh it, Isa. 10: 5, 15, nor any other passive instrument to the hand of a free agent; than the will of man is unto the decree of God." "Man, even in violating God's command, fulfilleth God's decree." "Though sin, as sin, be evil, yet the being of sin for a better end is good." Though sin be voluntary, yet God controls and overrules it for good. "The water whilst it runneth its own course, serveth the end of the artificer in turning about the mill according to his intent. An illegitimate child is a creature of God; but its illegitimacy is the crime of its parents." Mr. Norton earnestly contends, that, though God has decreed the existence of sin, he is not the author of sin. The idea that God is the author of sin, is spoken of as "a blasphemy, which the devil has spit out at the divine provi. dential purposes." "The liberty of man, though subordinate to God's decree, freely willeth the very same thing, and no other, than that which it would have willed, if (upon a supposition of that impossibility,) there had been no decree. Man acts as freely, as if there were no decree; yet as infallibly, as if there were no liberty. Liberty is the effect of the decree, so far is the