Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who artthou O man c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall Adam had power to stand Therefore the proper essentiall end of this commandement was to exercise Adams obedience Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousnesse in God Bellarmine doth confesse that God may doe that which if man should doe hee sinned as for instance Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would doe it if it lay in his power but God is not so tyed both because hee hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free hee might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if hee should hinder all evill things there would many good things be wanting to the world for there is nothing which some doe not abuse The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held that God had a serious will of saving all men but not an efficacious will of saving all Thus differing from the Arminians on one side and from some Protestant Authours on the other side and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious is this of Gods to Adam seriously willing him to stand and with all giving him ability to stand yet it was not such an efficacious will as de facto did make him stand for no question God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven But concerning the truth of this their Assertion we are to enquire in its time But for the matter in hand if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency yea and efficiency in some sense no question but God did seriously will his standing when he gave that commandement And howsoever Adam did fall because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him whereby he was enabled to obey God To deny Adam that help which should indeed make him stand was no necessary requisite at all on Gods part But secondly that of Austins is good God would not have suffered sin to be if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill not that God needed sin to shew his glory for he needed no glory from the creature but it pleased him to permit sin that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations wee will say as Austine to the Hereticks Illigarriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly wee must conclude that this positive command was universall and that Adam is here taken collectively for although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given yet it was not personall but to Adam as an head or common person Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him for whether it be in him or in as much as all have sinned it cometh to the same purpose for how could all be said to have sinned but because they were in him And this is also further to be proved by the commination In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby Besides the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law besides the naturall for Adam doe also inferre for Adams posterity It is true some Divines that doe hold a positive law would have been yet seem to be afraid to affirme fully that the posterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very same commandement of eating the forbidden fruit but I see no cause of questioning it Now all this will be further cleared when wee come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sinne unto his posterity And indeed if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing there could be no more reason why Adams sinne should be made ours then the sinnes of our immediate parents are made ours I know Peter Martyr and he quoteth Bucer is of a minde that the sinnes of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity and Austin inclineth much to that way but this may serve to confute it that the Apostle Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one mans disobedience Now if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was why should the accusation be still laid upon him But of this more hereafter 6. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eat of the forbidden fruit We need not run to the answer of some that this was spoken onely by way of threatning and not positively as that sentence upon the Ninivites for these conclude therefore Adam died not because of his repentance but Adam did not immediately repent and when he did yet for all that he died Others reade it thus In the day thou eatest thereof and then make the words absolute that follow Thou shalt die as if God had said There is no day excepted from thy death when thou shalt eate But the common answer is best which takes to die for to be in the state of death and therefore Symmachus his translation is commended which hath Thou shalt be mortall so that hereby is implyed a condition and a change of Adams state as soon as he should eate this forbidden fruit And by death we are not onely to meane that of the actuall dissolution of soule and body but all diseases and paines that are the harbingers of it So that hereby Christians are to be raised higher to be more Eagle-eyed then Philosophers They spake of death and diseases as tributes to be paid they complained of Nature as a step-mother but they were not able to see sin the cause of this Yea in this threatning we are to understand spirituall death and eternall also Indeed it 's made a question Whether if Adam had continued be should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in Paradise but that his death would have been more then temporall appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed the things that concern heaven and hell or the resurrection are not so frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New yet there are sufficient places to convince that the Promises and threatnings in the Old Testament were not onely temporall as some doe most erroneously maintain 7. Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit And this indeed is a very famous question but I shall not be large in it The orthodox they hold that immortality was a priviledge of innocency and that Adams body then onely became mortall when
I rather take it to be so called because the old was to cease and vanish away being before the other in time Now in my method I will lay down the false differences and then name the true The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections And for this they are very resolute granting indeed that Christ and eternall things were promised in the Old Testament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament whereupon they say that grace and salvation was not till Christ came And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Testament they take rigidly and universally as if there had been no eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge That his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seem plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spiritual held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the New Testament hath added more perfect Laws and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though Godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not only command to pray but gave a prescript form of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they go on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and the Gospel capable of no opposite considerarion no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of works and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse errour whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when we speak of the Law and Gospelstrictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediatly to heaven therefore say they we do not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi The blood of Christ is the key of paradise but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I finde such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith he saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which he brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sin and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places he brings Jer. 5. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sin not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jews which God would bring back from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel only for had not the Godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sins viz. Christs blood as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sin in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full grown heirs What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see less sin in their children while young then when grown up and their childishness doth more excuse them And although children only have a rod for their faults yet men grown up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therfore he seeth sin in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest work of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to
beleever Now it 's impossible that a man should be a beleever and his heart not purified Acts 15. for whole Christ is the object of his faith who is received not onely to justifie but to sanctifie Hence Rom. 8. where the Apostle seemeth to make an exact order he begins with Prescience that is approbative and complacentiall nâ—â— in a Popish or Arminian sense then Predestination then Calling then Justification then Glorification I will not trouble you with the dispute in which place Sanctification is meant Now the Antinomian he goeth upon that as true which the Papist would calumniate us with That a profane ungodly man if beleeving shall be justified We say this proposition supposeth an impossibility that faith in Christ or closing with him can stand with those sins because faith purifieth the heart By faith Christ dwells in our hearts Ephes 3. Therefore those expressions of the Antinomians are very dangerous and unsound and doe indeed confirme the Papists calumnies Another place they much stand upon is Rom. 5. Christ dyed for us while we were enemies while we were sinners But 1. if Christ dyed for us while we were enemies why doe they say That if a man be as great an enemy as enmity it selfe can make a man if he be willing to take Christ and to close with Christ he shall be pardoned which we say is a contradiction For how can an enemy to Christ close with Christ So that this would prove more then in some places they would seem to allow Besides Christ dyed not only to justifie but save us now will they hence therefore inferre that profane men living so and dying so shall be saved And indeed the grand principle That Christ hath purchased and obtained all graces antecedently to us in their sense will as necessarily inferre that a drunkard abiding a drunkard shall be saved as well as justified But thirdly to answer that place When it is said that Christ dyed and rose again for sinners you must know that this is the meritorious cause of our pardon and salvation but besides this cause there are other causes instrumentall that go to the whole work of Justification Therefore some Divines as they speak of a conversion passive and active so also of a justification active and passive and passive they call when not onely the meritorious cause but the instrument applying is also present then the person is justified Now these speak of Christs death as an universall meritorious cause without any application of Christs death unto this or that soule Therefore still you must carry this along with you that to that grand mercy of justification something is requisite as the efficient viz. the grace of God something as meritorious viz. Christs suffering something as instrumentall viz. faith and one is as necessary as the other I will but mention one place more and that is Psal 68. 18. Thou hast received gifts even for the rebellious also that the Lord God may dwell among them Here they insist much upon this yea for the rebellious and saith the Author pag. 411. Seeing God cannot dwell where iniquity is Christ received gifts for men that the Lord God might dwell among the rebellious and by this meanes God can dwell with those persons that doe act the rebellion because all the hatefulnesse of it is transacted from those persons upon the back of Christ. And saith the same Author pag. 412. The holy Ghost doth not say that the Lord takes rebellious persons and gifts and prepares them and then will come and dwell with them but even then while they are rebellious without any stop the Lord Christ hath received gifts for them that the Lord God may dwell among them Is not all this strange Though the same Authour presse sanctification never so much in other places yet certainly such principles as these overthrow it But as for this place it will be the greatest adversary they have against them if you consider the scope of it for there the Psalmist speaks of the fruit and power of Christs Ascension as appeareth Ephes 3. whereby gifts were given to men that so even the most rebellious might be converted and changed by this ministery so that this is clean contrary And besides those words with them or among them are not in the Hebrew therefore some referre them to the rebellious and make Jah in the Hebrew and Elohim in the Vocative case even for the rebellious O Lord God to inhabit as that of Esay The Wolfe and the Lamb shall dwell together Some referre it to Gods dwelling yet doe not understand it of his dwelling with them but of his dwelling i. e. fixing the Arke after the enemies are subdued But take our Edition to be the best as it seemeth to be yet it must be meant of rebels changed by his Spirit for the Scripture useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Gods dwelling in men but still converted Rom. 8. 11. Ephes 3. 12. 2 Cor. 6. 16. LECTURE IV. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully HAving confuted some dangerous inferences that the Antinomian makes from that precious doctrine of Justification I shall at this time answer only one question Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good workes for it 's very hard to repent to love to be patient or fruitfull and not to doe them for this end to justifie us And howsoever theologically and in the notion we may make a great difference between holinesse as a way or meanes and as a cause or merit of salvation yet practically the heart doth not use to distinguish so subtilely Therefore although I intend not to handle the whole doctrine of Sanctification or new obedience at this time yet I should leave my discourse imperfect if I did not informe you how good works of the Law done by grace and justification of the Gospel may stand together First therefore take notice what we meane by good works We take not good works strictly for the works of charity or liberality nor for any externall actions of religion which may be done where the heart is not cleansed much lesse for the Popish good workes of supererogation but for the graces of Gods Spirit in us and the actions flowing from them For usually with the Papists and Popish persons good works are commonly called those superstitious and supererogant workes which God never commanded or if God hath commanded them they mean them as externall and sensible such as Coming to Church and Receiving of Sacraments not internall and spirituall faith and a contrite spirit which are the soule of all duties and if these be not there the outward duties are like clothes upon a dead man that cannot warme him because there is no life within Therefore much is required even to the essence of a godly work though it be not perfect in degrees As 1. It must be commanded by God 2. It
be As a childe whose coat is a little dirty hath it not presently washed but when he falls wholly all over in the dirt this may be the cause of the washing of it so that they are preparations only so far as God intendeth them 6. All determination to one doth not take away that naturall liberty This will further cleere the truth for it may be thought strange that there should be this freedome of will in a man and yet thus determined to one sin onely whereas it 's plaine a determination to one kind of acts good or evill doth not take away liberty God can onely will that which is good and so the Angels and Saints confirmed in happinesse yet they doe this freely and so the Divels will that which is wicked onely It 's true some exclaime at such passages but that is onely because they are prepossessed with a false opinion about liberty for a determination to one may arise from perfection as well as naturall imperfection It is from Gods absolute perfection that hee is determined to will onely good and when Adam did will to sin against God it did not arise from the liberty of his will but his mutability There is a naturall necessity such which determineth a thing to one and that is imperfection but a necessity of immutability in that which is good is a glorious perfection The Learned speak of a three-fold liberty 1. From misery such as the Saints shall have in heaven 2. From sin to which is opposed that freedome to righteousnesse of which our Saviour speaketh Then are yee free indeed when the Son hath made you free and of which Austine Tunc est liberum quando liberatum 3. From naturall necessity and thus also man though hee be necessarily carried on to sin yet it is not by a naturall necessity as beasts are but there is Reason and Will in him when he doth thus transgresse onely you must take notice that this determination of our Will onely to sin is the losse of that perfection we had in Adam and doth not arise from the primaeve constitution of the will but by Adams fall and so is meerly accidentall to it 7. Nor doth it take away that willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried out unto For now if man were carried out to sin against his will and his delight then there might be some shew of pleading for him but it is not so he sinneth as willingly and as electively in respect of his corrupt heart as if there were no necessity brought upon him Therefore that is good of Bernards The necessity takes not away the willingnesse of it nor the willingnesse of it the necessity It 's both an hand-maid and so free and which is to be wondered eoque magis ancilla quò magis libera Hence therefore no wicked or ungodly man can have any excuse for himselfe to say the fates or necessity drove him for besides that by his fault he hath cast himselfe into this necessity and so is as if a man in debt who was once able to pay but by his wilfull prodigall courses hath spent all should think to be excused because he cannot pay Besides I say this just and full answer this also is to be said that no man sins constrainedly but every one is carried on with that delight to sin as if he were independent upon any providence or predefinitive permissive decrees of God or any such corrupt necessity within him Hereby he pitieth not himselfe hee seeth not his undone estate nihil miserius misero non miserante scipsum Hence it is that a mans whole damnation is to be ascribed to himselfe Wee ourselves have destroyed our owne soules wee cannot cast it upon Gods decrees And this is necessarily to be urged because of that naturall corruption in us with Adam to cast our sinne upon God 8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it and yet not give the totall efficacy unto it This is a maine particular to consider for Pelagius and Arminius and Papists all doe acknowledge grace Pelagius it 's noted of him that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion and held grace in every one of them Hee did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam as you heard before yea by this meanes hee deceived all the Easterne Churches and they acquitted him when he said thus If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act wee doe let him be an anathema So Papists and Arminians they all acknowledge grace but not grace enough Gratia non est gratia nisi sit omni modo gratuita As for example First they acknowledge grace to be onely as an universall help which must be made effectuall by the particular will of man so that grace is efficacious with them not by any inward vertue of it self antecedaneous to and independent upon the Will but eventually only because the will doth yeeld and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol homo generant hominem one as the universall cause the other as the particular cause Thus grace and free-will produce a good action grace as the generall cause and free-will as the particular but how derogatory is this to grace how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace For If I should aske Who is the father of such a man it would be very hard to say The Sun in the firmament so it would be as absurd to say Grace regenerated and converted this man Again they make grace a partiall cause only so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to work this or that good thing and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the work of conversion but this supposeth us not dead in sinne 9. Men may naturally performe the outward act of a commandement Now though we be thus corrupt yet for all that men by nature may doe that outward act which is commanded by God or abstaine from the matter prohibited Thus Alexander abstained from the Virgins hee took captives which is so much related in stories and many other famous instances of the Heathens though some indeed think they had a speciall helpe and aide from God to doe that but here the Apostle in the Text is cleare They doe by nature the things of the law Some doe not like that dictinction They may doe the substance of the work but not the manner of a good worke because they think the substance doth comprehend that indeed which makes a good work howsoever they agree that the externall act may be done Thus Ahab hee externally humbled himselfe and some think that Uriah which Esay calls The faithfull witnesse he took to him to be the same with him that brought in the Altar of Damascus so that though he was an idolater and an ungodly man yet hee was reputed a faithfull man in his word And certainly this is something to make many men inexcusable They may
truly the opposition that seemeth to be in those words It hath been said to them of old but I say unto you makes me incline to the former way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case It is also demanded who are meant by those of old to what age that doth extend Some referre it to those times only that were between Esdras and Christ but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then and thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally except Act 21. 16. referreth to the times of Moses or the Prophets Secondly Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old be the Law and words of Moses or the additions of corrupt glossers And that most of them are the expresse words of Moses it is plain as Thou shalt not kill or Commit adultery but the doubt lyeth upon two places The first is ver 21. Shall be in danger of judgement Here is say some a two-fold corruption 1. By adding words which are not in the Scripture for they speake peremptorily He shall dye whereas these words seem to be obscure and doubtfull He shall be brought before the judges to be tryed whether he be guilty or no. The second corruption they conceive in the sense and that is as if the Pharisees did understand the Commandment only to forbid actuall murder but not murderous thoughts affections or intentions And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth as is to be shewed afterwards but for the former I do something doubt because though that addition be not exprest in so many words yet there seemeth to be that which is equivalent for Numb 35. 30. there we read the murderer who was to be put to death was to be tryed by witnesses which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause The second particular is that ver 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy where some learned men observe a three-fold depravation 1. An implyed one as if a friend were only a neighbour 2. A plain omission for Lev. 19. it 's added as thy self which is here omitted 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted but expresly prohibited as Exod. 23. 4. Prov. 25. 21. And this may probably be thought an interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees arguing on the contrary that if we were to love our neighbours then we were to hate our enemies yet there are some who would make the sense of this in the Scripture that is in a limited sense to the Canaanites for they think that because they were commanded to make no Covenant with them but to destroy them and not to pity them therefore this is as much as to hate them and thereupon they understand the two fore quoted places that speak of relieving of our enemies to be only meant of enemies that were Jews their Country-men and not of strangers And the Jews thought they might kill any idolaters Therefore Tacitus saith of them there was misericordia in promptu apud suos mercy to their own but contra omnes alios hostile odium hostile hatred against all others yet this command of God to destroy those Nations some understand not absolutely but limitedly if so be they did refuse the conditions of peace I therefore incline to those who think it a perverse addition of the Scribes and Pharisees yet am not able to say the other is false 3. Whether our Saviour do oppose himself here to others as a Law-giver or as an Interpreter cleansing away the mud and filth from the fountain And this indeed is worthy the disquisition for this chapter hath been taken by the Manichees and Marcionites of old and by other erroneous persons of late to countenance great errours for some have said that the Author of the Old-Testament and the New Testament are contrary some have said that the New-Testament or the Gospel containeth more exact and spirituall duties then the Old Hence they conclude that many things were lawful then which are not now and they instance in Magistracy resisting of injuries swearing and loving of our enemies and many counsels of perfection added And this is a very necessary Question for hereby will be laid open the excellency of the Law when it shall be seen that Jesus Christ setting aside the positive precepts of Baptisme and the Lords Supper c. commanded no new duty but all was a duty before that is now Now that our Saviour doth only interpret and not adde new Laws will appear 1. From that protestation and solemn affirmation he makes before he cometh to instruct the hearers about their duties Think not that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it Now although it be true that Christ may be said to fulfill the Law diverse wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his doctrinall fulfilling it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking of the Law and if this be so then our Saviours intent was that he came not to teach them any new duty to which they were not obliged before onely he would better explicate the Law to them that so they might be sensible of sin more then they were and discover themselves to be fouler and more abominable then ever they judged themselves Thus Theophylact As a painter doth not destroy the old lineaments only makes them more glorious and beautifull so did Christ about the Law In the next place Christ did not adde new duties which were not commanded in the Law because the Law is perfect and they were bound not to adde to it or detract from it Therefore we are not to continue a more excellent way of duty then that prescribed there Indeed the Gospel doth infinitely exceed in regard of the remedy prescribed for afflicted sinners and the glorious manifestation of his grace and goodnesse but if we speak of holy and spirituall duties there cannot be a more excellent way of holinesse this being an idea and representation of the glorious nature of God 3. That nothing can be added to the Law appeareth by that Commandment of loving God with all our heart and soul Now there can be nothing greater then this and this command is not only indicative of an end which we are to aime at but also preceptive of all the means which tend thereunto And lastly our Saviour saith not Except your righteousnesse exceed that of Moses his Law or which was delivered by him but that of the Scribes and Pharisees implying by that plainly his intent was to detect and discover those formall and hypocriticall wayes which they pleased themselves in when indeed they never understood the marrow and excellency of the Law Question 4. What was the opinion received among the Pharisees concerning the Commandments of God That you may know the just ground our Saviour had thus to expound the Law it will be manifest if you consider the generall opinion
were of Now say they this spirit is the spirit of the New Testament which is opposed to the Spirit of Elias in the Old The answer is obvious that Christ doth not there oppose the Spirit of the New Testament the Old together but their spirit and Elias his spirit What Elias did he was moved unto by the Spirit of God not for any private revenge but that the glory of God might be illustrated Now this fire of theirs was rash and vindicative It was not elementary fire but culinary nourished by low and unworthy considerations In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour John 8. to the adulteresse where he doth not proceed to the stoning of her but rather freeth her The answer is that Christ in his first coming was not as a Judge and therefore did not take upon him to medle in temporall punishments only as a minister he laboured to bring them unto repentance both the woman and the accusers And whereas againe it 's objected that this way of putting to death is against charity and love of mens souls because many are put to death without any seeming repentance which is presently to send them to Hell The answer is that all Magistrates they are to take care for the salvation of the melefactors soules as much as in them lyeth but if they doe perish in their sins this ariseth not from justice done which is rather to bring them in mind of their sins and to humble them but it cometh from the frowardnesse obstinacy in their owne hearts And in that we see a Magistracy confirmed in the Gospel we need not require an expresse command in the New Testament for the putting of some malefactors to death The third thing which they say was allowed in the Law but forbid by Christ in the Gospel is Warre And certainly we may reade in Antiquity that the Christians did refuse warre but not universally for there were Christian souldiers only there were some peculiar causes why in those times the Christians might decline it As first because in their military oath there was a calling upon a heathen god and their banners lifted up were polluted with idolatry And secondly because they should be forced sometimes to be instruments in accomplishing the Emperours Edicts against the Christians which they would not do Now if we bring places out of the Old-Testament for the lawfulnesse of warrs they care not for say they the laws of Nature and of Moses are to be reformed by the Lawes of Christ God indeed say they gave the Jewes in the Old-Testament leave to fight because they had a temporall inheritance and possession given them which they could not keep but by force of armes now under the New-Testament God hath not done so to his people Thus they say but this is a shift for we know Abraham by a meere law of nature went to war and delivered his nephew Lot being oppressed by enemies By that Warre is allowed by Christ appeareth plainly by comparing 1. Tim. 2. 3. and Rom. 13. where the Apostle would have us pray for Magistrates supposeth that while they are Magistrates they may be Christians and come to the faith so that thereby we may live a quiet and godly life under them now how can this be unlesse they draw their sword upon offenders And if they cannot in an ordinary legall way be brought to judgement then by force of Armes The second knowne argument is from Luke 3. where John Baptist counselleth the souldiers not to lay downe their office but to look to such duties as were necessary to them in that place and which is to be observed these were mercenary souldiers as it is thought they were at that time As for the Objections they are taken from such considerations as will be examined in the next particular only the Orthodox that do hold war lawfull they do acknowledge many rules necessary for the godly and holy managing of it and it is an hard thing to have an holy camp and this made Austin say in regard of the concomitant evils of it that Omne bellum etiam justum esse detestandum yet not but he thought it necessary to have it used when it concerned the glory of God and the good of the publique LECTVRE XX. MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old c. THere remain two Questions more to be decided in this businesse concerning Christs interpretation of the Law of Moses The one is about the lawfulnesse of repelling force by force The other about applying our selves to the Magistrate to defend us against the injury and violence of others Now that I may not be tedious in the discussing of these I will lay down fome few grounds that serve to the clearing of the truth herein and so proceed to other matter although as you have heard this tendeth much to the dignity and excellency of the Law First therefore take notice that there is in all a cursed pronenesse to do things by way of revenge Insomuch that there is not one in a thousand that doth rise up in practise to this excellent way and rule of patience The Heathens they thought to revenge our selves was lawfull Thus Tully It is the first office of Justice to hurt no body unlesse first provoked by injury O quam simplicem veramque sententiam saith Lactantius duorum verborm adjectione corrupit But Seneca he was against this Immane verbum est ultio and Qui ulsciscitur excusatiùs peccat Now whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about the lawfulnesse it 's certain the practises of men are much contaminated this way In State and Civil matters in Church matters what a revengefull spirit breatheth in men This certainly cometh much short of our Saviours Directions There is no injury or violence offered unto thee but in stead of revengefull affections there may be holy mortifying thoughts in thee As when Sheba cursed David see how that brought him to the sense of sinne to look up unto God more then to the instrument All defamations and reproaches may serve to make thy graces more splendent As Plutarch observeth the Gardener planteth his unsavory herbs Garlike and Onyons neer his sweetest Roses that so the smell thereof may be the more prized That was an excellent temper of Calvin when reviled by Luther he said Etiamsi Lutherus millies me diabolum vocet ego tamen illum insignem Domini servum agnosco Although Luther call me a thousand times a Divell yet I acknowledge him an eminent servant of God Why is it that there are such suspicions heart-burnings defamations of one another hard speeches and censures but because this lesson of Christ is not learned by us 2. Consider this that the primitive Christians have gone very farr in this Question holding it unlawfull to defend a mans self from another who would kill us by killing of the Invader Austin saith he