sin The sin of a Prince greater then the sin of a vulgar person and therefore in the Law there was a greater Sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the Prince and Priest then of the people The third circumstance aggravating his sin was the easinesse of the commandment and the easinesse man had to keep the same both in regard of himself whom no itching concupiscence urged as being altogether free therefrom and not as we his off-spring are continually vexed with the boiling thereof Secondly in regard of the thing it self he was to abstain from being onely one fruit in so great a liberty of all the garden besides How easily might he have abstain'd from one to whom God had given the use of all saving this one he wanted not to feed him he wanted no variety of food he had even enough to surfet on only to approve his obedience to Him who had given all the rest unto him he was to abstain from one and yet he would not Quanta fait saith S. Aug. iniquitas in peccando ubi tanta erat non peccandi facilitas The fourth circumstance aggravating this sin was the place which was Paradise as it were in Gods own presence even afore his face for as heaven above other parts of the world is the place of Gods speciall presence so was Paradise above other parts of the earth as it were an heaven upon earth the place wherein he singularly revealed himself and therefore an holy place and the Temple of God Do not men otherwise giving the loose rein to wickednesse yet abhorre to commit it in Gods Temple How impudently contumelious was this sin therefore which was committed in Gods very Presence-chamber All these aggravations are common to both our Parents which all laid together makes their sin as great as ever any was saving the sin against the holy Ghost for so the best Divines do think But Eve addes one aggravation more to her weight in that she was not content to sin her self alone but she allured and drew her husband also into the like horrible transgression with her whereby she was not only guilty of her own personall sin but of her husbands also And this added so much unto her former summe that S. Paul 1 Tim. 2. 14. speaks of her as if she had been the only transgressour Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression So great and horrible a thing it is in the Eye of God to be cause or mover of anothers sin woe be unto them who by any means are the cause of anothers fall And justly might God say to Eve for this respect though there had been no more What is this that thou hast done Now I come to the womans excuse The Serpent beguiled me In which words are three things considerable The author the Serpent The action Guile The object Me. Concerning the author the Serpent two things are inquirable first what the Serpent was indeed secondly what Eve supposed him to be For the first I think none so unreasonable as to beleeve it was the unreasonable and brute Serpent for whence should he learn or how should he understand Gods commandment to our first Parents Or how is it possible a Serpent should speak and not only so but speak the language which Eve understood For though some there be who think that beasts and birds have some speech-like utterings of themselves yet none that a beast should speak the language of man It remains therefore that according unto the Scriptures it was that old deceiver the Devil and Satan who abused the brute Serpent either by entring into him or taking his shape upon him The last of which I rather incline unto supposing it as you shall hear presently to be the law of spirits when they have intercourse or commerce with men to take some visible shape upon them as the Devil here the Serpents whence he becomes styled in Scripture The old Serpent Now for the second question what Eve took him to be whether the Serpent or Satan If we say she thought him to be the brute Serpent how will this stand with the perfection of mans knowledge in his integrity to think a Serpent could speak like a reasonable creature who would not judge her a silly woman now that should think so and yet the wisest of us all is far short of Eve in regard of her knowledge then Again if we say she knew him to be the Devil I will not ask why she would converse at all with a wicked spirit who she knew had fallen from his Maker but I would know how we should construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the beginning of this Chapter where he saith The Serpent was the subtillest of all the beasts of the field which God had made and so implies the womans opinion of the Serpents wisdome was the occasion why she was so beguiled otherwise to what end are those words spoken unlesse to shew that Satan chose the Serpents shape that through the opinion and colour of his well-known wisdome and sagacity he might beguile the woman For the assoiling of which difficulty I offer these propositions following First I will suppose there is a law in the commerce of spirits and men that a spirit must present himself under the shape of some visible thing For as in naturall and bodily things there is no entercourse of action and passion unlesse the things have some proportion each to other and unlesse they communicate in some common matter so it seems God hath ordained a Law that invisible things should converse with things visible in a shape as they are visible which is so true that the conversing presence of a spirit is called a Vision or Apparition And experience with the Scriptures will shew us that not only evil Angels but good yea God himself converseth in this manner with men And all this I suppose Eve knew Secondly I suppose further that as spirits are to converse with men under some visible shape so is there a law given them that it must be under the shape of some such thing as may lesse or more resemble their condition For as in nature we see every severall thing hath a severall and sutable physiognomy or figure as a badge of the inward nature whereby it is known as by a habit of distinction so it seems to be in the shapes and apparitions of Spirits And as in a well governed Common-wealth every sort and condition of men is known by some differing habit agreeable to his quality so it seems it should be in Gods great Commonwealth concerning the shapes which spirits take upon them And he that gave the law that a man should not wear the habit of a woman nor a woman the habit of a man because as he had made them divers so would he have them so known by their habits so it seems he will not suffer a good and a bad spirit a noble and ignoble one
founded in an inflammation of flegme returns every day an Ague which comes from choler every other day from melancholy every third day Now if a body may be kept so long unburied it is supposed it may be kept so long uncorrupted namely where a corruption is not begun before death as in some diseases but longer it will not continue When therefore it is so often inculcated in the New Testament that our Saviour should rise again the third day the Holy Ghost in so speaking respects not so much the number of dayes as the fulfilling of Scripture that Messiahs body should not see corruption but should rise before the time wherin dead bodies begin to corrupt and indeed our Saviour rose again within forty hours after he gave up the Ghost and was not two full dayes in the grave Therefore if there be any other Scripture which implies Messiah should rise before his body should see corruption that Scripture whatsoever it be shews he should rise again within three daies EXODUS 4. 25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the fore-skin of her son and cast it at his feet and said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es THEN that is when she saw the Angel of the Lord ready to kill Moses her husband in the Inne because his son was not circumcised she took a sharp stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is she took a knife which according to the custome then was made of stone sharped This we may learn out of Ioshuah 5. 2. where the Lord sayes to Ioshuah Make thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sharp knives say we ad verbum cultros petrarum and circumcise again the children of Israel The Chaldee Paraphrast hath Make thee novaculas acutas the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus far all is clear but for the rest we are to seek First on whom the fault lay and what was the reason of this omission of circumcision Then who and what is meant when it is said she cast or made the foreskin to touch his feet and above all what is meant by sponsus sanguinum Zipporah is commonly reputed to have been a perverse and froward woman and Moses the meekest man on earth to have had that mishap in his choice which many a good man hath The reason because she not onely hindred her childe from being circumcised out of some nicety and aversation thereof as a cruell ceremony but also when she saw there was no remedy but she must do it to save her husbands life yet she did it with an upbraiding indignation telling him that he was a bloody husband who must have such a thing done unto his poor childe But I see no ground either for the one or the other For that the circumcision of the childe was not deferred out of any aversation of hers of that ceremony may be gathered First because she was a Midianitesse and so a daughter of Abraham by Ketu rah and therefore well enough acquainted and inured to that Rite which not onely her Nation the Midianites but all the Nations descended of Abraham observed as may be seen in the Ismaelites or Saracens who learned not this ceremony first from Maâ—…met but retained it as an ancient custome of their Nation Secondly she had suffered already her elder son Gershom to be circumcised wherefore then should we think she was averse from the circumcision of this For that this childe for whom Moses was now in danger was Fleezer his youngest son it cannot be denied for as much as it is evident that Moses at this time was the Father of two sons which by reason as may seem of this disturbance he sent back with his wife unto her Father Iethro as we may reade in the eighteenth Chapter of this Book By which it may be gathered that the cause of this omission of circumcision was not any aversenesse in Zipporah from that rite but rather because they were in their journey when the childe was born and so having no convenient time or place to rest in till the wound might be healed and thinking it might endanger the infants life to be tossed up and down whilst the wound was green in so long and tedious a voyage they resolved to deferre the circumcision And that Zipporah was delivered of this childe when they had begun this journey for Egypt may be gathered by this because Moses before Gods sending him hath but one childe mentioned namely Gershom For what reason can be given why if Eleezer had been then born he should not have been mentioned also But howsoever this case of travell afterward excused the Israelites in the Wildernesse for deferring the circumcision of their children then yet could it not excuse Moses here in regard it was necessitas accersita he being not forced to take his wife and children with him especially his wife being in that case but might have sent her and them back presently to her Father as upon this admonition he did Nor was it indeed fit when God sent him upon such a businesse to carry such an incumbrance with him Thus have we freed Zipporah from the first charge of being the cause of this omission out of any aversenesse to the Divine Ordinance Now I come to shew likewise that the words she spake at the time of circumcision Sponsus sanguinum to mihi es were no words of upbraiding indignation to her husband as is supposed but have a far other meaning For I beleeve not she spake these words to Moses but to her Childe whom she circumcised as the Formula then used in circumcision namely that as the fore-skin fell down at her childes feet not Moses or the Angels feet she pronounced the Verb 〈◊〉 solennia Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum My reasons are First because a Husband is not wont to be called sponsus after the wedding solemnity is past nor can there any such example be shewn in Scripture Ergo it is not like that Zipporah after she was the mother of two children should say to her Husband Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es Secondly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word here translated Sponsus properly signifies Gener a son in Law and Sponsus onely by way of equivalence or coincidence because to be made son in Law to the Parents is by being the daughters Sponsus My meaning is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used signifies not the relation of the Bridegroom to his Bride but his relation to his Brides Parents by taking their daughter to wife And therefore in the whole Scripture we shall never finde it relatively used or with an affix but onely in respect to the wives Father or Mother And of the same condition is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we often by equivalence translate a Bride but properly signifies Nurus wherefore we shall never finde the Bridegroom call the Bride his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the Bride the Bridegroom her
ceasing of Prophecy that is in the time of Maccabees which will not easily be granted Besides that we reade not that Antiochus cast any fire into the Temple Now if it speak of the vastation by Nebuchadnezzar then had the Jews before that time not onely a Sanctuary for sacrifice but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coâ—…ticula Dei that is either Proseucha's or Synagogues for either will serve my purpose But now you will say what profit is there of this long discourse were it so or were it not so as I have endeavoured to prove of what use is the knowledge thereof to us yes to know it was so is usefull in a threefold respect First for the right understanding of such places of the Old Testament where a House of God and assembling before the Lord are often mentioned there where neither the Ark of the Covenant nor the Tabernacle at such time were as besides the places before alledged we reade in the tenth of the first Book of Samuel of Sauls meeting with three men going up to God to Bethel and of a place called The Hill of God whence a company of Prophets came from the high place there prophesying with a Tabret Pipe and Harp before them in neither of which places can we finde that ever the Tabernacle was and as for the Ark we are sure it was all this time at Kiriathjearim till David solemnly fetcht it thence and if at any time the Ark might as now it was not be transferred to any of them upon occasion of some generall Assembly of the Nation that so they might have opportunity to ask counsell of the Lord and offer Sacrifice yet were they not the ordinary station thereof Secondly we may learn from hence that to have appropriate places set apart for prayer and Divine duties is not a circumstance or rite proper to legall worship onely but of a more common nature For as much as though Sacrifice wherein the legall worship or worship of the old Covenant consisted were restrained to the Ark and Tabernacle and might not be exercised where they were not yet were there other places for Prayer besides that which are no more to be accounted legall places then bare and simple prayer was a legall Dutie Lastly we may gather from this Description of Proseucha's which were as Courts encompassed onely with a wall or other like enclosure and open above in what manner to conceive of the accommodation of those Altars we reade to have been erected by the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Iacob in the Book of Genesis namely that the ground whereon they stood was fenced and bounded with some such enclosure and shaded with trees after the manner of Proseucha's as we may reade expresly of one of them at Beersheba That Abraham there planted a Grove and called upon the Name of the Lord the everlasting God Yea when the Tabernacle and Temple were the Altar of God stood still in an open Court and who can beleeve that the place of those Altars of the Patriarchs were not bounded and separated from common ground And from these patterns in likelihood after the Altar for Sacrifice was restrained to one onely place the use of such open places or Courts for prayer garnished with trees as I have shewed Proseucha's to have been continued still 1 TIM 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine THere are two things in these words to be explicated First what is meant here by Elders Secondly what is this double-honour due unto them For the first there is no question but the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel of Christ were contained under this name for so the New Testament useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter for the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in the Gospel whence commeth the Saxon word Priester and our now English word Priest And the Ancient Fathers thought these onely to be here meant and never dreamed of any other But in our time those who obtrude a new Discipline and Government upon the Church altogether unknown and unheard of in the ancient will needs have two sorts of Elders or Presbyters here understood one of such as preach the Word and Doctrine whom they call Pastours another of Lay-men who were neither Priests nor Deacons but ned as assistants to them in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Discipline in admonitions and censures of manners and in a word in the execution of the whole power of the Keys These our Church-men call Lay-Elders and the Authors of this new device Presbyterians these Presbyters or Elders they will have meant in the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders that rule or govern well whom therefore they call Ruling-Elders the other whom they call Pastours to be described in the latter words they who labour in the Word and Doctrine whom therefore they distinguish by the name of Teaching-Elders This is their exposition and this exposition the ground and foundation of their new Discipline but none of the Fathers which have commented upon this Place neither Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Theodoret Primasius Oecumenius or Theophylact as they had no such so ever thought of any such Lay-Elders to be here meant but Priests only which administred the Word and Sacraments But how will you say then is this Place to be understood which may seem as they alledge to intimate two sorts of Elders some that ruled only others that laboured also in the Word and Doctrine The Divines of our Church who had cause when time was to be better versed in this question then any others have given divers expositions of these words none of which give place to any such new-found Elders as the Fautors of the Presbyterian Discipline upon the sole Authority of this one place have set up in divers forain Churches and would have brought into ours I will relate four of the chief of these expositions to which the rest are reducible The first is grounded upon the use of the participle in the Greek tongue which is often wont to note the reason or condition of a thing and accordingly to be resolved by a causall or conditionall conjunction According whereunto this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duplici honore digni habeantur or dignentur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be resolved thus Elders or Presbyters that rule or govern the Flock well let them be accounted worthy of double honour and that chiefly in respect and because of their labour in the Word and Doctrine And so this manner of speech will imply two duties but not two sorts or orders of Elders and that though this double honour be due unto them for both yet chiefly and more principally for the second their labour in the Word and Doctrine and this way goes S. Chrysostome and other Greek Writers A second exposition is taken from the force and signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Gloriam tibi tribuo which I think is the better So also in this Chapter Luke 2. 38. it is said of Anna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo laudes gratiasque agebat So Heb. 13. 15. By him therefore that is by Christ let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fruit of our lips confessing to his Name By all which it is evident that to praise and give glory unto God whether by praise at large or prayer and thanksgiving in speciall is nothing else as I have said but to confesse and acknowledge his peerlesse Majesty over all and in all which the Scripture cals his glory And if ever there were a work of God wherein all these peerlesse Prerogatives of Power Wisdome and Goodnesse all together appeared in the highest degree it was undoubtedly in this wonderfull work of the Incarnation of the Son of God for mans redemption well therefore might the heavenly Host sing Gloria in excelsis Deo The Power the Wisdom and Goodnesse of the glorious God be acknowledged by the holy Angels and all the Host of heaven for ever and ever This is the meaning of the Doxology Come we now to the gratulation which contains the cause thereof glory be to God on high for ô factum benè ô happy news there is peace on earth good-will towards men One and the same thing two ways expressed for it is an Apposition or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the latter words declaring the meaning of the former Peace on earth that is good-will towards men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' Ev for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit in imitation of the Hebrew construction where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbs which signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nown signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and accordingly both the Septuagint and New Testament expresse the same But the Vulgar Interpreter reads here Pax in terris hominibus bonae voluntatis as if the Greek were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as now all our Copies constantly read and I beleeve ever did yet Beza seems here to favour the Vulgar Latine expounding Homines bonae voluntatis of those whom God wils well to to wit of the Elect to whom this Peace by Christ belongeth and from the conveniency of this sense inclines to beleeve that the Greek anciently read so quoting to this end Irenaeus Origen and Chrysostome as he saith in divers places But he trusted too much the Latine Translation of Chrysostome for the Greek Chrysostome hath no such matter but both in those places Beza points to and in divers others reads constantly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as our Copies doe And so I make no question Irenaeus and Origen did too in the Greek Originals if we had them to look into But the Latine Translators thought not fit to alter the words of the Hymne so ordinarily sung in the Liturgy and so expressed it in Latine as the Latine Church used And for the meaning I beleeve the Vulgar Latine aim'd at no other sense then what the Greek implies namely that this Peace was no earthly peace but the peace of Gods good-will to man referring the Genitive Case voluntatis not to hominibus but to pax Pax in terris what pax Pax bonae voluntatis hominibus That which makes me think so is because Origen and his Translator in the place Beza quotes for this reading expresly expounds it so And so there will not be a pin to choose save that the Greek expresseth this sense by way of Apposition more naturally the Latine by way of Rection somwhat harshly and yet perhaps the Translatour thought lesse ambiguously Well then this peace on earth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods good-will or favour to men and Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the peace on earth the Angels gratulate namely the reconciliation of God to men in Christ For by reason of Sin heaven and earth God and man were till now at enmity but by Christ this enmity is taken away and man by the forgivenesse of his sin restored unto peace and favour with God And as by this Nativity God and man became one Person so by this conjunction Heaven and earth Angels and men become one Fellowship one City and Kingdome of God the Kingdome of Satan that Prince of the powers of the Aire who by reason of sin had captivated and brought under his service the whole Earth and thereby held the same at open war and enmity with Heaven being now by degrees to be destroyed and rooted out And this is that admirable mystery of our Redemption by Christ which the Angelicall Host here gratulates by the name of Peace on earth and good-will towards men And that we may not doubt but we have hit the meaning that this peace on earth is Gods good-will to men and therefore expounded by it besides that in the Old Testament peace is often taken for Gods favour and mercy to men as in that of Isay 54. 10. The mountains shall depart and the hils be removed but my kindnesse shall not depart from thee neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee So if we examine the Use thereof in the New Testament we shall finde it in speciall applied to this our Reconciliation to God in Christ by remission of sin S. Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. describes the Gospel thus The word which God sent to the children of Israel preaching peace by Iesus Christ. And S. Paul Col. 1. It pleased God the Father that in Christ all fulnesse should dwell And having made peace through the bloud of his Crosse by him to reconcile all things unto himself What can be plainer then this The same as I take it he means Eph. 2. when he tels us That Christ came to preach peace both to those that were afarre off and to them that were nigh that is both to Jew and Gentile But what peace namely that through him we both might have accesse by one Spirit unto the Father Hence the Gospel is called the Gospel of peace and God so often in the New Testament the God of peace that is of reconcilement and favour and the Euangelicall salutation is Grace mercy and peace from God our Father and Iesus Christ our Lord. The meaning of this Angelicall gratulation being thus cleared let us see now what may be learned and observed therefrom Where my first Observation shall be this S. Peter tels Cornelius That to Christ give all the Prophets witnesse that through his name whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Our Saviour after his Resurrection expounding the Scriptures to his Apostles sayes the same Luke 24. 47. Thus it is written saith he and thus it behoved Christ to suffer
prayer for the house of Onesiphorus for like good service done to the Offices of Gods House The Lord saith he grant unto him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day that is the day of Judgement which is Tempus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when every one shall receive according to his work The controversie therefore between the Romanists and us is not whether there be a reward promised unto our works we know the Scripture both of the Old and New Testament is full of testimonies that way and encourageth us to work in hope of the reward laid up for us We know that in keeping of Gods Commandements there is great reward Psa. 19. 11. And that unto him that soweth in righteousnesse shall be a sure reward Prov. 11. 18. We know our Saviour saith Mat. 5. 12. Blessed are ye when men revile and persecute you for great is your reward in heaven Also that he that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward And whosoever shall give a cup of gold water only to one of his little ones in the name of a Disciple shall not lose his reward Mat. 10. Again we read Luk. 6. 35. Love your enemies Do good and lend and your reward shall be great and ye shall be the children of the Highest we know also what S. Iohn saith 2 Ep. v. 8. Look to your selves that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought but that ye may receive a full reward But the Question is Whence this Reward commeth whether from the worth or worthinesse of the work as a debt of Justice due thereto or from Gods mercy as a recompence freely bestowed out of Gods gracious bounty and not in justice due to the worth of the work it self Which Question me thinks Nehemiah here in my Text may determine when he saith Remember me ô Lord for my good deeds according to thy great mercy And the Prophet Hosea Chap. 10. 12. when he biddeth us Sow to our selves in righteousnesse and reap in mercy And S. Paul Rom. 6. 23. where though he saith that the wages of sin is death yet when he comes to eternall life he changeth his style But saith he eternall life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gracious gift of God through Iesus Christ. For as for our works they are imperfect and whatsoever they were we owed them to him in whom we live and have our being whether there were any reward or not promised for them Neither do we hereby any whit detract from that Axiome That God rewardeth every man according to his work For still the question remaineth the very same Whether there may not be as wel merces gratiae as merces justitiae that is Whether God may not judge a man according to his works when he sits upon the Throne of Grace as well as when he sits upon his Throne of Justice And we think here that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence Psa. 62. 12. With thee ô Lord is mercy for thou rewardest every one according to his work Nay more then this we deny not but in some sense this reward may be said to proceed of Justice For howsoever originally and in it self we hold it commeth from Gods free bounty and mercy who might have required the work of us without all promise of reward for as I said we are his creatures and owe our being unto him yet in regard he hath covenanted with us and tied himself by his word and promise to conferte such a reward the reward now in a sort proveth to be an Act of Justice namely of Iustitia promissi on Gods part not of merit on ours Even as in forgiving our sins which in it self all men know to be an Act of Mercy he is said to be Faithfull and Iust 1 Ioh. 1. 9. namely of the faithfull performance of his promise for promise we know once made amongst honest men is accounted a due debt But this argues no more any worthinesse of equality in the work towards the obtaining of the reward then if a promise of a Kingdome were made to one if he should take up a straw it would follow thence that the lifting up of a straw were a labour of a work worth a Kingdome howsoever he that should so promise were bound to give it Thus was Moses carefull to put the children of Israel in minde touching the Land of Canaan which was a type of our eternall habitation in heaven that it was a Land of promise and not of merit which God gave them to possesse not for their righteousnesse or for their upright heart but that he might perform the word which he sware unto their Fathers Abraham Isant and Iaacob Whereupon the Levites in this book of Nehemiah say in their prayer to God Thou madest a Covenant with Abraham to give to his seed the Land of the Canaanites and hast performed thy word because thou art just that is true and faithfull in keeping thy promise Now because the Lord hath made a like promise of the Crown of life to them that love him S. Paul sticks not in like manner to attribute this also to Gods Justice Henceforth saith he 2 Tim. 4. 8. is laid up for me a crown of righteousnesse which the righteous Iudge shall give me at that day and not to me only but to all them that love his appearing Upon which S. Bernard most sweetly as he is wont Est ergo quam Paulus expectat corona Iustitiae sed justitiae Dei non suae Iustum quippe est ut reddat quod debet debet autem quod pollicitus est Lastly for the word merit It is not the name we so much scruple at as the thing wont now adays to be understood thereby otherwise we confesse the name might be admitted if taken in the large and more generall sense for any work having relation to a reward to follow it or whereby a reward is quocunque modo obtained In a word as the correlatum indifferent either to merces gratiae or justitiae For thus the Fathers used it and so might we have done still if some of us had not grown too proud and mistook it since we think it better and safer to disuse it even as Physitians are wont to prescribe their Patients recovered of some desperate disease not to use any more that meat or diet which they finde to have caused it And here give me leave to acquaint you with an Observation of a like alteration of speech and I suppose for the self-same cause happening under the old Testament namely of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Righteousnesse into that which findeth mercy for so the Septuagint and the new Testament with them render the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustitia not only when it is taken for beneficience or alms as in that Tongue it is the ordinary word in which use we are wont