Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	see_v	sin_n	3,750	5	5.0282	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77854	Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.	Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1646 (1646)	Wing B5666; Thomason E357_3; ESTC R201144	253,466	294

then the sins of our immediate parents are made ours I know Peter Martyr and hee quoteth Bucer is of a mind that the sins 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 eate of Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also 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 dye 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 he 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 concerne 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 maintaine 7. Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden Adam before his sin was immortall 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 his soule was made sinfull This is vehemently opposed by Papists and by Socinians now they both agree that man should not actually have dyed but for sin only they say he was mortall as the Socinians or immortall by a meere supernaturall gift of God But a thing may be said to be immortall severall waies as the Learned observe 1. From an absolute A thing may be said to be immortall foure waies necessity either inward or outward in this sense God onely is said to be immortall 2. When there is no inward materiall cause of dissolution though outwardly it may be destroyed and thus are Angels and the soules of men 3. A thing may be said to be immortall by some speciall gift and appointment of God as the bodies glorified and as some say the heavens and maine parts of the world shall have onely a qualitative alteration not a substantiall abolition 4. That is immortall which hath no propensity to death yet such a condition being put it will die and thus Adam was therefore in some sense he may be said mortall in another immortall But because he is commonly called mortall that is obnoxious to death therefore we say Adam before his sin was immortall and this is abundantly confirmed by this sentence of commination And therefore though Adam would have eaten and drunk though his body was elementary and the originall of it dust though he would have begotten children yet none of these can prove him mortall because the righteousnesse in his soule would have preserved the fit temperament of his body especially having Gods promise made to his obedience 8. Whether upon this threatning Thou shalt die can be fixed The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soule as well as body Of all the errours that have risen up there is none more horrid in nature and more monstrous in falshood then this so that if it could be true of any mans soule that it was not an immateriall substance but onely a quality of the temperament it would be true of the Authour of that Book which seemeth to have little sense and apprehension of the divine authority in the Scriptures concerning this matter What an horrid falshood is it to call the doctrine of the immortall soule an hell-hatched doctrine But certainly you would think for a man to dare to broach such an opinion he must have places of Scripture as visible as the Sun But this Text is his Achilles and all the rest shrowd under this from which he frames his first and chiefest argument thus What of Adam was immortall through innocency was to be mortaliz'd by transgression But whole Adam was in innocency immortall Therefore all and every part even whole man was lyable to death by sin But what Logician doth not see a great deale more foisted into the Conclusion then was in the Premises Whole Adam was to be mortaliz'd therefore all and every part What a non sequitur is here That is true of the whole as it is the whole which is not true of every part If I should say Whole Christ dyed for death is of the concrete the person therefore all and every part of Christ dyed therefore his divine nature dyed this would be a strange inference yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built Man is said to be mortall whole man dieth therefore every part of man dieth There is difference between totum and totalitas the whole and every part of that whole It 's true death doth bring the compositum the person to a non-entity but not every part of that compositum to a non-entity Besides that which was immortall is mortalized according to their natures the soule dieth a spirituall and an eternall death But see how the Divell carries this man further and sets him upon the pinacle of errour and bids him throw himselfe head-long because he doth evidently say that if the soules were destroyed as well as the bodies then there

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 seeme 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 spirituall 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 2. Of Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Lawes under the New Testament New Testament hath added more perfect Lawes 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 onely command to pray but gave a prescript forme 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 goe 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 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of workes 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 error whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when wee speak of the Law and Gospel strictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immediatly to heaven Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediately to heaven therefore say they wee doe 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 but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New find 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 hee saw sinne 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 hee brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sinne and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places hee brings Jer. 50. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sinne not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jewes which God would bring backe from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel onely 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 sinnes viz Christs bloud as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sinne in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full growne heires What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see lesse sinne in their children while young then when growne up and their childishnes doth more excuse them And although children onely have a rod for their faults yet men growne 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 therefore he seeth sinne 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 worke of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master that so they may be prepared for Christ and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel that their lives should be fuller of wisedome and grown graces then the Jewes because they are not under a School-master as children As if one should say to a young man that is taken from the Grammar-schoole and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for hee is not in

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 againe 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 Authour 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 overgrow 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 cleane 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 Lambe 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 rebells 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 Vpon 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 workes We take not good workes strictly for the workes 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 Foure things required to the essence of good works by God 2. It must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God All the unregenerate mans actions his praiers and services are sinnes 3. It must flow from an inward principle of grace or a supernaturall being in the soule whereby a man is a new creature 4. The end must be Gods glory That which the most refined man can doe is but a glow-worme not a starre So that then onely is the worke good when being answerable to the rule it 's from God and through God and to God 2. That the Antinomian erreth two contrary waies about good works Sometimes they speak very erroneously and grosly about them Thus Islebius Agricola the first Antimonian that was who afterwards joyned with others in making that wicked Book called The Interim and his followers deliver these Positions That saying of Peter Make your calling and election sure is dictum inutile an unprofitable saying and Peter did not understand Christian liberty So againe As soon as thou once beginnest to thinke how men should live godlily and modestly presently thou hast wandered from the Gospel And againe The Law and workes onely belong to the Court of Rome Then on the other side they lift them up so high that by reason of Christs righteousnesse imputed to us they hold all our workes perfect and so apply that place Ephes 1. Christs cleansing his Church so as to be without spot or wrinkle even pure in this life They tell us not onely of a righteousnesse or justification by imputation but also Saintship and holinesse by this obedience of Christ And hence it is that God seeth

and loved him and said he was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven that is the life hee lived was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven yet this was no preparation in it selfe to it nay he may be further off as two high hills may be neere in the tops to one another but the bottomes some miles asunder And this is so great a matter that great sins are made by God a preparation to some mans conversion which yet of themselves they could never 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 Determination to one kind of acts takes not away 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 he 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 A three-fold liberty 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 ye free indeed when the Son hath made you free and of which Austin Tunc est liberum quando liberatum 3. From naturall necessity and thus also man though he 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 wee 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 Determination to sin takes not away that delight in sin which man is inevitably carried out unto 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 himself into this necessity and so is as if a man in debt who was once able to pay but by his willfull 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 seipsum Hence it is that a mans whole damnation is to be ascribed to himselfe Wee our selves have destroyed our owne soules we 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 Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given unto it not give the totall efficacy unto it This is amaine particular to consider for Pelagius and Arminius and Papists all doe aknowledge grace Pelagius it s noted of him that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion and held grace in every one of them He did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam 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 selfe 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 Againe they make grace a partiall cause onely so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to worke this or that good thing and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the worke of conversion but this supposeth us not dead in sinne 9. Men may naturally performe the outward act of a commandement The outward act of a commandement may be performed by the power of Nature 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 he took captives which is so much related in stories and many other famous instances of the Heathens though some indeed think

be manifested to be obedience For as Austin speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austin doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbeliefe were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor August if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who art thou 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 he 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 he hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free he might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if he 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 withall 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 For that errour much spreads and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid that Christ intentionally died and so offereth his grace to all 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 inabled 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 we will say as Austin to the Hereticks Illi garriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity we 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 we come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sin 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 sin should be made ours

say that the Law was given on Mount Sinai which it was so called from Seneh a bramble bush the bush God appeared in the Mountain being full of bramble bushes representing unto us the terrible and pricking power of the Law Vse To take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses Take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses lest at the same time we reject the whole Old Testament for it is said of the Prophets as well as of the Law that they are till John and then why should they limit the Law to Moses his hands more then others Why should they not say The Law as by David as by Isaiah and Jeremiah doth not bind And if you say they in other places speak of Christ so doth Moses also as our Saviour expresly saith So that I see not how an Antinomian can follow his principle but he must needs cast off the Old Testament except it be in what it is propheticall of Christ LECTURE XVIII MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time c. But I say unto you c. THe Law as you have heard may be considered either absolutely as a Rule or relatively as a Covenant We are handling of it in the first consideration and have proved that as it was delivered by Moses it doth belong to us Christians I shall now handle the Perfection of it and labour to shew that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses And this Question will be very profitable partly against the Antinomians partly the Papists and lastly the Socinians as will appeare in the handling of it That therefore I may the better come to my matter intended take notice in the generall that these words are part of Christs Sermon upon the Mount so that as the Law was first given upon a Mount so also it is explained and interpreted by Christ upon a Mount And in this Sermon is observable first that Christ begins with the end of actions Blessednesse for so Morall Philosophy which is practicall doth also begin Secondly he describes the Subjects who shall be made partakers of this and they are described by severall properties In the next place as some think ver 13. he instructs the Apostles about their peculiar Office Ye are salt not honey as one observeth which is bitter to wounds Ye are light which is also offensive to sore eyes In the next place he instructs the people though some make this only spoken to the Disciples and that first about the substance of the Precepts what duties are to be done against the false interpretations of the Pharisees and Scribes and in the next Chapter he sheweth the end Why we doe the good things God requireth of us and that is for the glory of God which ought to consume all other ends as the Sunne puts out the light of the fire and the first substantiall duty of the Commandements which he instanceth in is this in my text Now before I raise the Doctrine I must answer some Questions as First a What meant by It hath been said by them of old What is meant by those words It hath been said by them of old For here is some difference It is understood by some in the dative case thus It hath been said to them of old and hereby our Saviour would comprehend the Auditors or Hearers that have been heretofore Others doe understand it equivalent unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were in the ablative case and so it seemeth our Interpreters take it and thus others that are Orthodox but 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 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case It is also demanded who are meant b Who meant by those of old 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 Those precepts said to be of old are the law and words of Moses 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 seeme 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 Commandement 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 doe 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 threefold depravation 1. An implyed one as if a friend were only a neighbour 2. A plain omission for Levit. 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 pitty them therefore this is as much as to hate them and thereupon they understand the two fore-quoted places that speake of relieving of our enemies to be only meant of enemies that were Jewes their Countrymen and not of strangers And the Jewes thought they might kill any idolaters Therefore Tacitus saith of them there was misericordia in promptu apud suos but contra omnes alios hostile odium yet this command of God to destroy those Nations some understand not