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
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 wayes as the Learned observe 1. From an absolute necessity either inward or outward in this sense God only 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 only 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 that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soul 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 soul 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 soul an hell-hatched doctrine And what a contradiction also to call it hell-hatched when yet he holdeth there is no hell 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 died therefore his divine nature died 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 totalii as 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 devill carries this man further and sets him upon the pinacle of errour and bids him throw himself head-long because he doth evidently say that if the souls were destroyed as well as the bodies then there would be no heaven nor hell as yet he is bold and confesseth there is none till the resurrection Now if this be so then how shall that be true that the heaven must contain Christ till he come This doth exceedingly puzzle him but he takes the heaven for the place where the Sun is and concludes peremptorily as if he had been in the same also that Christs glorified body is in the Sun Without doubt saith he pag. 33. he must be in the Sun and saith he pag. 34. The Sun may be called well the right hand of God by which through Christ in him we live and move and have our being and there speaketh nothing but darknesse about light as that the Sun is the vaile to keep off the light of Christs body from us which otherwise would be so glorious we could not see it and live But how dare any man make this interpretation The heavens must contain him that is he must be in the Sun till he come to restitution of all things The naming of these things is confutation enough onely this I brought as in a passage meerly to see what cause we have to pray to God to keep us from our selves and our own presumptuous thoughts Use 1. Of Instruction that a law may be made even to a righteous man and that threatnings may be menaced to a man who yet is not under the actuall curse and damning power of the Law Use 2. To see the goodnesse of God that tryed Adam but with one positive precept This should be a caution against multitude of Church precepts how did Austin complain of it and Gerson in his time Use 3. How the devill doth still prevaile over us with this temptation of knowledge There were Hereticks called Gnostici and Ophitae This desire to eate of the tree of knowledge hath brought much ignorance and errour I know there are many people so sottish and stupid that the divell could never intice them with this temptation They account it a trouble even the knowledge of meere necessary things to salvation but when men desire to know above that which is written this is a dangerous precepice Use 4. To take heed of our selves If Adam thus perfect did faile in a command of tryall about so little a matter take heed where you set gun-powder seeing fire is in your heart Compare this of Adams with that of Abraham what a vast difference Austin thanks God that the heart and temptation did not meet together LECTURE XII GEN. 1. 26. And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness YOu have heard of a two-fold law given to Adam one by outward prescript for tryall and exhortation of his obedience the other by implantation which was the Morall Law and of that at this time When God had made all other things then man the immediate and proxime end was created it being Gods goodnesse to make no living creature before he
soul hath said By one man sin so let it say By one man life LECTURE XIII GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die I Have already handled this Text as it containeth a law given to Adam by God as a foveraigne Lord over him now I shall re-assume this Text and consider it as part of a Covenant which God did enter into with Adam and his posterity for these two things a Law and a Covenant arise from different grounds The Law is from God as supreme and having absolute power and so requiring subjection the other ariseth from the love and goodnesse of God whereby he doth sweeten and mollifie that power of his and ingageth himself to reward that obedience which were otherwise due though God should never recompence it The words therefore being heretofore explained and the Text eas'd of all difficulties I observe this Doctrine That God did not only as a Law-giver injoys obedience unto Adam but as a loving God did also enter into covenant with him And for the opening of this you must take these Considerations 1. That this covenant with Adam in the state of innocency is more obscurely laid down then the covenant of grace after the fall for afterwards you have the expresse name of the Covenant and the solemne entring into it by both parties but this Covenant made with Adam must only be gathered by deduction and consequence This Text cometh the neerest to a Covenant because here is the threatning expressed and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience We are not therefore to be so rigid as to call for expresse places which doe name this Covenant for that which is necessarily and immediately drawn from Scripture is as truly Scripture as that which is expresly contained in it Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandements by way of Covenant 1. From the evil threatned and the good promised For while there is a meere command so long it is a law onely but when it is further confirmed by promises and threatnings then it becomes a Covenant And if that position be true of some which maketh the tree of life a sacrament then here was not onely nudum pactum a meer covenant but a seale also to confirme it And certainly being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature it was of his meere goodnesse to become ingaged in a promise for this I know it 's a Question by some Whether Adam upon his obedience should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in that naturall life which was marvellous happy But either way would have been by meer promise of God not by any naturall necessity Life must be extended as farre as death now the death threatned was not onely a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom. 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deal very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meer Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his etymology of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as a tally to maintain their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implyeth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle
other As the first estate of Adam did far exceed this in the rectitude it had being altogether without any sin for he was not created as some would have it in a neutrall estate doth plainly repugne that image of God after which he is said to be created Now what a blessed estate it is to have an heart not stained with fin to have no blemish nor spot in the soul will appeare by Paul's bitter complaint Who shall deliver me from this body of death That estate also doth excell ours in the immortality and outward felicity he enjoyed for our second Adam Christ howsoever he hath destroyed the works of sin and Satan yet he hath not fully removed the scars which those sins have left upon us Christ doing here as those Emperours who had taken their enemies prisoners and captives but yet killed them not immediately till the day of triumph came But on the other side our condition is in one respect made happier then Adams which is the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace if once translated into it And this consideration Austin did much presse We have indeed much sin with our grace yet God will not let that spark of fire goe out but Adam had much holinesse and no sin yet how quickly did he lose it Not but that grace of it self is amissible as well as that of Adams but because of the speciall promise and grace of God in Christ therefore whom he loves he will alwaies love The next Question is Whether we may be now by Christ said to be more righteous then Adam For so an Antinomian in his Treatise of Justification pag. 320. 321. quoteth places out of some Authours as affirming this that now by Christ we have a more perfect righteousnesse then that of Angels or was lost in Adam and by this meanes labours to prove that we are so holy that God can see no sin in us Now to answer this I deny not but the orthodox sometimes have used such expressions and upon this ground because the righteousnesse of Christ as it was his was of infinite value and consequence and so as we are in a Mediatour we are in a better and surer condition then the Angels or Adam was but they never used such expressions to the Antinomian sense as if hereby we were made not onely perfectly righteous but also holy and without sin This opinion is at large to be refuted in the Treatise about Justification only thus much take for an answer That the doctrine which holdeth the imputation of Christs righteousnesse doth not necessarily inferre that therefore we have righteousnesse more excellent then Angels or Adam for it is onely imputed to us for that righteousnesse which we ought to have it is not made ours in that largenesse or latitude as it was Christs but as we needed it Now God never required of us such an holinesse as the Angels have or a greater righteousnesse then Adam had and therefore it 's a senslesse thing to imagine that that should be made ours which we never needed or ever were bound to have so that those expressions of the orthodox must be understood in a sound sense 7. Whether that which God requireth of us be greater then that he demanded of Adam in the state of innocency For thus the Arminians hold that greater abilities are now required of a man to beleeve the Gospel then were of Adam to fulfill the Law partly because the mysterie of the Gospel doth consist in meere revelation which the Law doth not as also because all the actions required by the Gospel do suppose a resurrection from that first fall Now say they more is required to rise from a fall then to prevent a fall And all this they urge to prove the necessity of universall grace given to all Now to answer this First I conclude as before hath been proved that the nature of justifying faith was in Adam though there was not such a particular object about which it may be exercised for a thing may be for the nature of it and yet not have such a name which it hath from a certain respect to some object that now is not or from some effects which it cannot now produce So Mercy and Grace was in God for the nature of it alwaies but as it hath respect to a miserable and wretched creature that was not till the creature was made so And so in Adam there was the nature of love and pity but yet in regard of some effects which could not be exercised in that estate his love could have no such name as mercy or pity Thus Adam for his faith that faith which he did put forth in Gods Promise about eternall life upon his obedience was a justifying faith for the nature of it but had not the denomination or respect of justifying because such an object was impossible in that condition Hence that faith of dependency which Adam had was the same in nature which justifying faith is Therefore to the arguments proposed we deny that greater strength is required to rise then to keep from falling for the same things which would have preserved Adam from falling as faith in the first place the same also are required for a man to rise And as Adam would have stood as long as his faith in God stood the devill labouring to shake that by his temptation so Christ praying for Peter a man fallen by Adam doth especially pray that his faith may not fail because by that he was supported and strengthned Lastly Whether Adams immortality in that estate be not different from that which shall be in heaven Yes it is very plain it is so for he was so immortall as that there was a possibility of mortality but it is not so with those that are glorified Again he was so immortall as that he had a naturall body which did need nourishment but it is not so with those that are made happy It is true we have heretofore concluded that Adam in his first estate was naturally immortall for if death had been naturall God had been the authour of death and man would not have abhorred it Neither did Christ dye simply because he was a man but because he was a man made for us who ought to dye because of our sin Indeed because Adam did eat and drink and his body was a naturall body therefore there was mortality in him in a remote power but actuall mortality was hindered by reason of that glorious condition he was placed in and therefore not actually to dye but to be in a mortall state was threatned as a punishment to him of all apostasie from God Use 1. Of Instruction What comfort may be to the godly from Christ though by nature all is lost Who can heare without trembling of this great losse Righteousnesse and immortality lost God and his image lost If thou lookest upon thy proud earthly sinfull heart thou mayest say It was not thus
of Aristides who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore answered Propound to day and I will answer to morrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly but take time to be diligent and considering 5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion that differeth from the learned and godly be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it The Apostle giveth a good rule Rom. 14. Hast thou faith have it to thy self He doth not there command a man to equivocate or dissemble and deny a truth but not needlesly to professe it when it will be to the offence of others Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their own accord to the Heathen Magistrates professing themselves Christians whereby they were put to death hath a good and elegant speech Confiteri nos magis voluit quà m profiteri he doth confesse that doth it being asked and demanded he doth professe that doth it out of his own free accord 6. Consider that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow grace and Christ For he sets up free grace and Christ not who names it often in his Book or in the Pulpit but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it Now who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two i. Who urgeth no use of the Law who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin who denieth humiliation or he who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects Certainly this later will much more in heart and reall affections set up free grace FINIS THE TABLE A. THe Law abolished as a Covenant not as a Rule Page 213 The Law abrogated to beleevers in six particulars p. 217. 218. 219. 220 Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremoniall Law which agree not to the morall p. 222 Six abuses of the Law p. 17. 18. 19. 20 Conversion and Repentance are our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace p. 99 Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit p. 110 Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturalls or supernaturalls answered in two Positions p. 132 Whether Adam needed Christs help p. 133 Whether God required lesse of Adam then us p. 138 Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience though not amorem mercenarium p. 14 What help the Angels had by Christ p. 134 Calvin's two Reasons why Angels needed Christs mediation ibid. Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed p. 88 Foure limitations concerning those antecedaneous works p. 88. 89 The first Antinomian p. 39 Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted p. 243. 246 The Antinomian why most inexcusable p. 45 The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it a contradiction p. 214 The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbeleevers as well as beleevers p. 217 The opinion of the old Antinomians p. 277 The word As taken variously p. 165 Antidotes against Antinomian errors p. 279 Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace p. 281 B. A Blaspheming Monk p. 27 Blaspheming Papists ibid. The Lay-mans book is the whole universe p. 77 Master Burton his Report of Antinomians p. 278 C. A Cordiall for a broken heart p. 22. 23 Contradictions of the Antinomians p. 31 A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature p. 83 Christs Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall p. 135 It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law p. 210 The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law p. 211 God entred into Covenant with Adam in giving him a law p. 122. 123 What a Covenant implyes p. 124 Why the Covenant of grace is not still a covenant of works seeing works are necessary p. 48 A Covenant of Friendship Reconciliation p. 124 No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man p. 126 How God can covenant with man ibid. Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way rather then in an absolute way p. 127. 128 A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace p. 129. 130 The morall law delivered as a covenant proved p. 230 It hath the reall properties of a covenant ib. In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace explained p. 232. 233 Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace p. 234. 235. 236 Objections answered p. 237 Doctor Crisp confuted p. 15 Cursing taken two waies 1 Potentially so a law is alwaies condemning 2. Actually so a law is not ever condemning p. 6 D. DEcalogue resembled to the ten Predicaments by Martyr and why p. 3 The threatning of death to Adam if he did eat c. was fulfilled in that he became then mortall and in a state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also p. 109. 110 Determination to one takes not away naturall liberty nor willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried unto p. 89. 90 Three generall waies of proving the Deity of Christ p. 133. 134 Foure differences not substantiall but accidentall betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 251 c. Fire Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel strictly taken p. 257. 258. 259 c. All Doctrine reduced to three heads Credenda Speranda Facienda p. 252. 253. E. THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia and Synagoge confuted p. 252 If the Antinomians end were only to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of workes to Justification it were more tolerable p. 31 but then their books and end were not reconcileable p. 32 Other ends which might make the Antinomians more excusable ibid. How Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse p. 267 End taken two waies ibid. Four waies Christ is the perfective end of the Law p. 270. 271 Aquinas distinction of end p. 267 Eudoxus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 77 Exhortations to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to doe them p. 98 Errours in Doctrine damnable p. 279 F. FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers p. 2 How Faith justifies p. 43 Two acts of Faith p. 44 Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel p. 261. 262 The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature p. 73 Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first p. 120 Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency and shall be in heaven p. 128 Adams faith considered as an act of the soul not as an organ to lay hold on Christ p. 129 Finger of God p. 157 Finis indigentiae assimilationis
God and us 3. Because it performes all duties by way of compensation merit That there is a God may be known by the light of Nature The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The Patriarchs did not offer sacrifices by the light of Nature but God revealed his will to Adam to be so worshipped Originall sin can onely be truly knowne by Scripture-light Matth. 17. 12. expounded Communion of all things no precept of Nature and the Apostles practise of it was only occasionall not binding to posterity God is more off ended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens There is in man a natural power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance Man by the power of nature wholly unable to performe good actions 1. Because our natures are full of sin and corruption 2. Because grace and conversion are the work of God 3. Because glory is to be given to God onely not to our selves Nature of it self cannot dispose for justification or sanctification and the reasons why There are and may be some preparatory and antecedaneous works upon the heart before justification or sanctification Determination to one kind of acts takes not away liberty A threefold liberty Determination to sinne takes not away that delight in sinne which man is inevitably carried out unto Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given unto it The outward act of a commandement may be preformed by the power of Nature Whatsoever meere naturall men doe is sin before God because 1. The act wants faith the person reconciliation with God 2. It proceeds not from a regenerate nature 3. 'T is not done in reference to Gods glory 4 There is no promise annexed to any act that wants faith There is in mans nature a passive capacity of grace which is not in stones and beasts To presse a duty and yet to acknowledge Gods grace or gift to do it is no contradiction Mans inability to observe Gods precepts maketh not voâ—d the nature of the precepts because this in ability proceeded from mans owne fault A thing said to be impossible three waies Gods commands though they be not a measure of our power may serve to convince humble c. Necessity of sinning hinders not the delight and willingnesse man hath in sin and consequently God may reprove him for his transgressions * Cap. 5. l. 3. Ethic. ad Nicom Though God works all our good in us yet exhortations are the instrument wherby he works it How conversion and repentance may be said to be our acts Gods working upon the heart of a sinner for conversion excludes not mans working Though wicked men cannot but sinne in praying and hearing yet they are bound to these duties God doth not bind himself to this way * Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi stupiditas ut major in infantos cadere non postit The tree of knowledge why so called God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heaâ—â— did give a positive law 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor Aug. The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adams posterity Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also Adam before his sin was immortall A thing may be said to be immortall foure wayes The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Image and likenesse signifie one and the same thing An Image consists in likenesse to another pattern after which it is made A Four-fold image The image of God in Adam consisted in the severall perfections and qualifications in his soul 1. In his Understanding was exact knowledge of divine and naturall things 2. His Will was wonderfully good and furnished with many habits of goodnesse 3. In his Affections regularity and subjection 2. The image of God consisted in a freedome from all misery and danger 3. It consisted in that dominion and soveraignty Adam had over the creatures That righteousnesse and holiness fixed in Adam was 1. Originall 2. Universall 3. Harmonious 4. A perfection due unto him upon supposition of the end wherunto God made him Righteousness was a perfection sutable and connaturall to Adam Adam had power to beleeve so farre as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject Repentance as it flowes from a regenerate nature reductively the image of God Gods image not fully repaired in us in this life Doctr. The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid down then the covenant off grace after the fall That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant appeares 1. From evil threatned and good promised 2. Because his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall God enters into Covenant with man by way of condescension makes promises unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him God deales with man by way of covenant not of power 1. To indeare himself unto him 2. To incite man to more obedience 3. To make this obedience more willing and free The Covenant God made with Adam was of works not of faith God entring into Covenant with Adam must be looked upon as one already pleased with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Gods Covenant did suppose a power and possibility in Adam to keep it 1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered as did flow from him as aliving creature endued with a rational soul 2 The principle and habit of righteousnesse was naturall to Adam but help from God to persevere supernaturall Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation but of conservation in righteousnesse The obedience of Angels may be said to be imperfect negatively not privatively Christs incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency in respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace The imputation of Christs righteousness doth not inferre that therefore we are more
must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God All the unregenerate mans actions his prayers 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-worm not a starre So that then onely is the work good when being answerable to the rule it 's from God and through God and to God 2. That the Antinomian erreth two contrary wayes about good works Sometimes they speak very erroneously and grosly about them Thus Islebius Agricola the first Antinomian 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 again As soon as thou once beginnest to thinke how men should live godlily and modestly presently thou hast wandered from the Gospel And again The Law and works only 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 clensing 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 no sin in beleevers This is a dangerous position and although they have Similies to illustrate and distinctions to qualifie it yet when I speak of imputed righteousnesse there will be the proper place to shew the dangerous falshood of them 3. You must in the discourse you shall heare concerning the necessity of good works carefully distinguish between these two Propositions Good workes are necessary to beleevers to justified persons or to those that shall be saved and this Good works are necessary to justification and salvation Howsoever this later is true in some sense yet because the words carry as if holinesse had some effect immediately upon our justification and salvation therefore I do wholly assent to those learned men that think in these two cases we should not use such a Proposition 1. When we deale with adversaries especially Papists in disputation for then we ought to speak exactly Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary lest they should seem to yeeld to Nestorius who denyed her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people for what common hearer is there that upon such a speech doth not conceive that they are so necessary as that they immediately work our justification The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified the other as conditions effecting justification 4. These good works ought to be done or are necessary upon these grounds 1. They are the fruit and end of Christs death Titus 2. 14. It 's a full place The Apostle there sheweth that the whole fruit and benefit of Christs redemption is lost by those that live not holily There are two things in our sins 1. The guilt and that Christ doth redeem us from 2. The filth and that he doth purifie from If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts hee will purifie thee from the noisomenesse of them And mark a two-fold end of this purification that we may be a peculiar people This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome saith he sought for among humane authours and could not finde it therefore some think the Seventy feigned this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It answers to the Hebrew word Segullah and signifieth that which is precious and excellent got also with much labour so that this holinesse this repentance of thine it cost Christ deare And the other effect is zealous of good workes The Greek Fathers observe the Apostle doth not say followers but zealous that doth imply great alacrity and affection And lest men should think we should onely preach of Christ and grace These things speak saith he and exhort And Calvin thinketh the last words Let no man despise thee spoken to the people because they are for the most part of delicate eares and cannot abide plaine words of mortification 2. There is some kind of Analogicall relation between them and heaven comparatively with evill works So those places where it 's said If wee confesse our sins he is not onely faithfull but also just to forgive us our iniquities So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crowne of righteousnesse which the righteous Judge c. These words doe not imply any condignity or efficiency in the good things wee doe but an ordinability of them to eternall life so that evill and wicked workes they cannot be ordained to everlasting life but these may Hence some Divines say That though godlinesse be not meritorious nor causall of salvation yet it may be a motive as they instance If a King should give great preferment to one that should salute him in a morning this salutation were neither meritorious nor causall of that preferment but a meer motive arising from the good pleasure of the King And thus much they think that particle for I was an hungry doth imply So that God having appointed holinesse the way and salvation the end hence there ariseth a relation between one and the other 3. There is a promise made to them 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godlinesse hath the promises as it is in the Originall because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God so that to every godly action thou doest there is a promise of eternall life And hereby though God be not a debtor to thee yet he is to himselfe and to his owne faithfulnesse Reddis debita nulli debens cryed Austine so that the godly may say Oh Lord it was free for thee before thou hadst promised whether thou wouldst give me heaven or no but now the word is out of thy mouth not but that we deserve the contrary onely the Lord is faithfull therefore saith David I will mention thy righteousnesse i. e. faithfulnesse onely and the Apostle This is a faithfull saying and worthy of all acceptation This made them labour and suffer shame If you aske How then is not the Gospel a Covenant of workes That in brief shall be answered afterwards 4. They are Testimonies whereby our election is made sure 2 Pet. 1. ver 10. Make your calling and election sure The Vulgar Translator interposeth those words per bona opera and complaineth of Luther as putting this out of the Text because it made against him but it 's no part of Scripture Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very
Adam when they were to be perfect and entire but by grace pardoning the imperfection of them in which sense the Arminians affirme it Answ Although good workes be requisite in the man justified or saved yet it 's not a Covenant of workes but faith and the reason is because faith only is the instrument that receiveth justification and eternall life and good workes are to qualifie the subject beleeving but not the instrument to receive the covenant so that faith onely is the condition that doth receive the covenant but yet that a man beleeve is required the change of the whole man and that faith onely hath such a receiving nature shall be proved hereafter God willing Use Of exhortation to take heed you turne not the grace of God into licentiousnesse suspect all doctrines that teach comfort but not duty labour indeed to be a spirituall Anatomist dividing between having godlinesse and trusting in it but take heed of Separating Sanctification from Justification Be not a Pharisee nor yet a Publican so that I shall exhort thee at this time not against the Antinomianisme in thy judgement onely but in thine heart also As Luther said Every man hath a Pope in his belly so every man an Antinomian Paul found his flesh rebelling against the Law of God reconcile the Law and the Gospel Justification and Holinesse Follow holinesse as earnestly as if thou hadst nothing to help thee but that and yet rely upon Christs merits as fully as if thou hadst no holinesse at all And what though thy intent be onely to set up Christ and Grace yet a corrupted opinion may soon corrupt a mans life as rheume falling from the head doth putrefie the lungs and other vitall parts LECTURE V. 1 Tim. 1. 9. Knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man WE are at this time to demolish one of the strongest holds that the Adversary hath For it may be supposed that the eighth verse cannot be so much against them as the ninth is for them therefore Austin observeth well The Apostle saith he joyning two things as it were contrary together doth monere movere both admonish and provoke the Reader to finde out the true answer to this question how both of them can be true We must therefore say to these places as Moses did to the two Israelites fighting Why fall you out seeing you are brethren Austin improveth the objection thus If the Law be good when used lawfully and none but the righteous man can use it lawfully how then should it not be but to him who onely can make the true use of it Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us consider who they are that are said to know and secondly what is said to be knowne The subject knowing is here in this Verse in the singular number in the Verse before in the plurall it 's therefore doubted whether this be affirmed of the same persons or no. Some Expositors thinke those in the eighth and these in the ninth are the same and that the Apostle doth change the number from the plurall to the singular which is very frequent in Scripture as Galat. 6. 1. Others as Salmeron make a mysticall reason in the changing Because saith he there are but few that know the Law is not made for the righteous therefore he speaketh in the singular number There is a second kind of Interpreters and they do not make this spoken of the same but understand this word as a qualification of him that doth rightly use the Law Thus The Law is good if a man use it lawfully and he useth it lawfully that knoweth it 's not made for the righteous Which of these interpretations you take is not much materiall onely this is good to observe that the Apostle using these words We know and Knowing doth imply what understanding all Christians ought to have in the nature of the Law Secondly let us consider what Law he here speaks of Some have understood it of the ceremoniall Law because of Christs death that was to be abolished and because all the ceremonies of the Law were convictions of sinnes and hand-writings against those that used them But this cannot be for circumcision was commanded to Abraham a righteous man and so to all the godly under the Old Testament and the persons who are opposed to the righteous man are such who transgresse the Morall Law Others that do understand it of the Morall Law apply it to the repetition and renovation of it by Moses for the Law being at first made to Adam upon his fall wickednesse by degrees did arise to such an height that the Law was added because of transgressions as Paul speaketh But we may understand it of the Morall Law generally onely take notice of this that the Apostle doth not here undertake a theologicall handling of the use of the Law for that he doth in other places but he brings it in as a generall sentence to be accommodated to his particular meaning concerning the righteous man here We must not interpret it of one absolutely righteous but one that is so quoad conatum and desiderium for the people of God are called righteous because of the righteousnesse that is in them although they be not justified by it The Antinomian and Papist doe both concurre in this errour though upon different grounds that our righteousness and works are perfect and therefore do apply those places A people without spot or wrinkle c. to the people of God in this life and that not onely in justification but in sanctification also As saith the Antinomian in a dark dungeon when the doore is opened and the sun-light come in though that be dark in it self yet it is made all light by the sun Or As water in a red glasse though that be not red yet by reason of the glasse it lookes all red so though we be filthy in our selves yet all that God seeth in us looks as Christs not onely in Justification but Sanctification This is to be confuted hereafter Thirdly let us take notice how the Antinomian explaineth this place and what he meanes by this Text. The old Antinomian Islebius Agricola states the question thus Whether the Law be to a righteous man as a teacher ruler commander and requirer of obedience actively Or Whether the righteous man doth indeed the works of the Law but that is passivè the Law is wrought by him but the Law doth not work on him So then the question is not Whether the things of the Law be done for they say the righteous man is active to the Law and not that to him but Whether when these things are done they are done by a godly man admonished instructed and commanded by the Law of God And this they deny As for the later Antinomian he speaketh very uncertainly and inconsistently Sometimes he grants the Law is a Rule but very hardly and seldome then presently kicketh all down again For
sweet correspondency one with the other there was no rebellion or fight between the inferiour appetite and the understanding Therefore some learned men say This righteousnesse is not to be conceived as an aggregation of severall habits but as an inward rectitude of all faculties Even as the exact temperament of the body is not from any superadded habit but from the naturall constitution of the parts 4. This righteousnesse and holinesse it was a perfection due to Adam supposing the end to which God made him If God required obedience of Adam to keep the law and happinesse thereupon it was due not by way of merit but condecency to Gods goodnesse to furnish him with abilities to performe it as the soul of Adam was a due to him supposing the end for which God made him Indeed now it 's of grace to us and in a far different consideration made ours because we lost it Lastly this was to be a propagated righteousnesse for as it is to be proved hereafter God did all this in a way of covenant with Adam as a publike person And howsoever every thing that Adam did personally was not made ours we did not eate in his eating nor drink in his drinking we did not dresse the garden in his dressing of it yet that which he did federally as one in convenant with God that is made ours so his sin and misery is made ours then his righteousnesse and happinesse As it is now By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin so then it would have been by one man righteousnesse and life by righteousnesse Questions to be made 1. Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam or no Howsoever some have thought this a meere contention of words and therefore if they were well explained there would be no great difference yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errours for grant this righteousnesse to be supernaturall to Adam as it is to us then 1. it will follow That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason are from the constitution of our nature and so no more sin then hunger and thirst is 2. That free-will is still in us and that we have lost nothing but that which is meerly superadded to us Or they compare this righteousnesse Adam had sometimes to an Antidote which preserves against the deadly effect of poyson sometimes to a bridle that rules the horse so that they suppose mans nature would of it self rebell but onely this was given to Adam to check it sometimes to Sampsons haire whereby he had supernaturall strength but when that was cut off he had onely naturall So that by this doctrine man now fallen should be weaker then he was but not corrupted Therefore we must necessarily conclude that this righteousnesse was naturall to him not indeed flowing from the principles of nature for so it was of God but it was a perfection sutable or connaturall to him it was not above him as it is now in us As a blind man that was made to see though the manner was supernaturall yet to see was a naturall perfection 2. Whether justifying faith was then in Adam Or Whether faith and repentance are now parts of that image This is a dispute among Arminians who plead Adam had not a power to beleeve in Christ and therefore it 's unjust in God to require faith of us who never had power in Adam to doe it The Answer is easie that Adam had power to beleeve so farre as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject It was a greater power then to beleeve in Christ and therefore it was from the defect of an object that he could not doe it as Adam had love in him yet there could be no miserable objects in that state to shew his love As for that other Question Whether repentance be part of the image of God Answ So farre forth as it denoteth an imperfection in the subject it cannot be the image of God for we doe not resemble God in these things yet as it floweth from a regenerated nature so farre it is reductively the image of God 3. Whether this shall be restored to us in this life again Howsoever we are said to be partakers of the divine nature and to be renewed in the image of God yet we shall not in this life have it fully repaired God hath declared his will in this and therefore are those stubs of sin and imperfection left in us that we might be low in our selves bewaile our losse and long for that heaven where the soule shall be made holy and the body immortall yet for all this we are to pray for the full abolition of sin in this life because Gods will and our duty to be holy as he is holy is the ground of our prayer and not his decree for to have such or such things done Yea this corruption is so farre rooted in us now that it is not cleansed out of us by meere death but by cinerifaction consuming the body to ashes for we know Lazarus and others that died being restored again to life yet could not be thought to have the image of God perfectly as they were obnoxious to sin and death Use 1. To humble our selves under this great losse Consider what we were and what we are how holy once how unholy now and here who can but take up bitter mourning Shall we lament because we are banished from houses and habitations because we have lost our estates and comforts and shall we not be affected here This argueth us to be carnall more then spirituall we have lost a father a friend and we wring our hands we cry We are undone and though we have lost God and his image all happinesse thereby yet we lay it not to heart Oh think what a glorious thing it was to enjoy God without any interruption no proud heart no earthly heart no lazie heart to grapple with see it in Paul O wretched man that I am c. Basil compareth Paul to a man thrown off his horse and dragg'd after him and he cryeth out for help so is Paul thrown down by his corruptions and dragg'd after them Use 2. To magnifie the grace of God in Christ which is more potent to save us then Adams sin can be to destroy us This is of comfort to the godly Rom. 5. the Apostle on purpose makes a comparison between them and sheweth the preheminency of one to save above the other to destroy There is more in Christ to save then in Adam to damne Christs obedience is a greater good then Adams sin is an evil It 's more honour to God then this is or can be a dishonour Let not then sin be great in thy thoughts in thy conscience in thy feares and grace small and weak As the time hath been when thy heart hath felt the gall and wormwood of sin so let it be to feel the power of Christ As thy
doth in reference to Christs death but more largely for Gods gracious ordering of such mercies and spirituall benefits to us by the death of Christ for the Covenant of grace implyeth Christs death it being a Covenant of reconciliation Now because there is in the Covenant of grace something of a Covenant and something of a Testament also hence some do call it a Testament-Covenant because it is of a mixt nature The rise of the Hebrew word Berith is variously conjectured some make it to come from a word that signifieth to eat because of the sacrifices and feasts that were at a Covenant some from a word that signifieth to cut because then in the striking of the Covenant there was a division of the beast that was killed some from the word that signifieth to create as also to order and dispose things by way of likenesse some from a word that signifieth to be pure and to choose either because it 's by agreement or because in Covenants they ought to deal without all fraud but I stand not upon these things By this which hath been said it may appeare that the Covenant God made with Adam though it be truly called a Covenant yet no wayes a Testament because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam Now to all this that hath been said there must this caution be added That a Covenant is not so properly said to be with God and man as between man and man for among them consent is requisite and doth mutually concurre to make the Covenant valid but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this consent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man Therefore if you regard the use of the word and the application of it it doth denote Gods decree and will or promise about things whether about the irrationall creatures or the reasonable Such was Gods Covenant not to drown the world and Gods Covenant with day and night yea Gods Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumcise his childe And thus it was with Adam Gods Covenant did not depend properly upon his consent and acceptation for he was bound to doe as God commanded whether he would agree or no. That Adams consent was not necessary to make the Covenant valid doth appeare in that he was bound to accept what God did require And it 's indeed disputed Whether Adam did so much as know and if he did not know he could not consent that God did indent with him as a publike person and so all his posterity in him although it may truly be thought that Adam did know this precept to be to him and his posterity for hereby his sinne is made the more hainous in undoing himself and all his as also by the knowledge of this he would be the more thankfull unto God that should propagate such great mercies to him and his and also be made more vigilant against falling 3. In the next place let us consider how God can be said to covenant or enter into a promise with man for it may be thought an imperfection and hereby God may seeme to lose his right that he cannot doe what he will But this may be easily answered for if God can give good things to man he may also promise to give them and therefore both to give and to promise to give are acts of liberality and dominion and so not repugning to the majesty of God Nor doth God by promising to give lose his dominion no more then he doth by giving It is true a promise doth induce an obligation and so in man it is with some imperfection but in God it is not because he doth not hereby become obliged to us but to his own self so that we have not a right of justice to the thing because God hath promised it to us but only God cannot deny himself nor his word and therefore we are confident And so Aquinas well Deus non est debitor quia ad alia non ordinatur sed omnia ad ipsum God by covenanting and promising doth not become a debtor because he is not to be ordered for other things but all things for him Hence is that saying of God Reddit debita nulli debens donat debita nihil pendens And so again Justus est non quia reddit debitum sed quia facit quod decet summè bonum So that when God entreth into a covenant or promise you must conceive of this sutably to his great majesty you must not apprehend of it as when two men agree that are equall and therefore a debt of justice ariseth between them and one may implead the other but as a mercifull condescension on Gods part to promise such things to us that so we might be the more confirmed in our hope in him Hence Durand and Ariminensis labour to prove that Gods promises doe not induce an obligation but denote the disposition of God to give although their arguments exclude onely a debt of justice from God Therefore although in the Covenant God makes with man there is a compact of mutuall fidelity yet there is not a reciprocall and equall right of covenanting because of the inequality of the Covenanters so that the whole disposition and ordering of the Covenant with such conditions is on Gods part and not mans Hence it 's called Gods Covenant and not mans 4. Consider why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere absolute supreme way There may be these Reasons 1. That God might hereby sweeten and indeare himself to us For whereas he might require all obedience from us and annihilate us at last or at least not vouchsafe heaven and ever lasting happinesse to shew how good and loving he is he will reward that most bountifully which is otherwise due to him for God did not make man because he needed him but that there might be objects to whom he would communicate his love Thou needest not my goodnesse or that extendeth not to thee saith David It 's Austins expression The earth doth farre otherwise dry up or swallow the water thirsting for it then the Sun beames which also consume the water the one doth it indigentiâ out of want the other potentiâ out of power and strength so that Adam could not but have thankfull and loving thoughts of God that would thus condescend 2. Another Reason might be to incite and incourage Adam the more to obedience For howsoever there was no sin in Adam or remisnesse yet this might serve as a meanes to preserve him in his obedience to God And here you may see that to do a duty because of a reward promised is not a slavish and unlawfull thing for did not God deale thus with Adam If he would obey he should live but if not then he must dye Will you say with the Antinomian That this was an unlawfull thing and this was to make Adam
legall and one that was not affected with the goodnesse of God to him It is true if a man obey God out of love to any thing more then God or equally with God this is unlawfull according to that Minus te amat qui tecum Domine aliquid amat 3. That hereby Adams obedience might be the more willing and free An absolute law might seeme to extort obedience but a covenant and agreement makes it to appeare more free and willing as if Adam would have obeyed though there could have been no obligation upon him to doe it 5. Consider that the nature of this Covenant was of works and not of faith It was not said to Adam Beleeve and have life eternall but Obey even perfect and entire obedience It is true indeed there was faith of adherence and dependance upon God in his promise and word and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the state of the subject as sinfull which justifying faith doth for it was in Christ who in his temptations and tryalls did trust in God And what the Old Testament calls trusting the New calls beleeving yea some say that this kind of faith shall be in heaven viz a dependance upon God for the continuance of that happinesse which they doe enjoy This faith therefore Adam had but in that Covenant it was considered as a gracious act and work of the soul not as it is now an organ or instrument to receive and apply Christ With us indeed there is justifying faith and repentance which keeps up a Christians life as the Naturalists say the calor innatus and humidum radicale doe the naturall life Faith is like the calor innatus and Repentance is like the humidum radicals and as the Philosopher saith if the innate heat devoure too much the radicall moisture or the radicall moisture too much the heat there breed presently diseases so it is with us if beleeving make a man repent lesse or repenting make a man beleeve the lesse this turneth to a distemper Yet though it were a Covenant of works it cannot be said to be of merit Adam though in innocency could not merit that happinesse which God would bestow upon him first because the enjoying of God in which Adams happinesse did consist was such a good as did farre exceed the power and ability of man It 's an infinite good and all that is done by us is finite And then in the next place Because even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God without the help of God Though some will not call it grace because they suppose that onely cometh by Christ yet all they that are orthodox do acknowledge a necessity of Gods enabling Adam to that which was good else he would have failed Now then if by the help of God Adam was strengthned to do the good he did he was so farre from meriting thereby that indeed he was the more obliged to God 6. God who entred into this Covenant with him is to be considered as already pleased and a friend with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Therefore here needed no Mediatour nor comfort because the soul could not be terrified with any sin Here needed not one to be either medius to take both natures or Mediatour to performe the offices of such an one In this estate that speech of Luthers was true which he denieth in ours Dens est absolute considerandus Adam dealt with him as absolutely considered not relatively with us God without Christ is a consuming fire and we are combustible matter chaffe and straw we are loathsome to God and God terrible to us but Adam he was Deo proximo amicus Paradisi colonus as Tertullian and therefore was in familiarity and communion with him But although there was not that ordered administration and working of the three Persons in this Covenant of works yet all these did work in it Hence the second Person though not as incarnated or to be incarnated yet he with the Father did cause all righteousnesse in Adam and so the holy Ghost he was the worker of holinesse in Adam though not as the holy Spirit of Christ purchased by his death for his Church yet as the third Person so that it is an unlikely assertion which one maintains That the Trinity was not revealed in this Covenant to Adam so that this sheweth a vast difference between that Covenant in innocency and this of grace What ado is here for the troubled soul to have any good thoughts of God to have any faith in him as reconciled but then Adam had no fear nor doubt about it 7. This Covenant did suppose in Adam a power being assisted by God to keep it and therefore that which is now impossible to us waâ— possible to him And certainly if there had been a necessity to sin it would have been either from his nature or from the devill Not from his nature for then he would have excused himself by this when he endeavoured to clear himself But Tertullian speakâ— wittily Nunquam figulo suo dixit Non prudenter definxisti me rudis admodum haereticus fuit non obaudiit non tamen blasphemavit creatorem lib. 2. ad Mar. cap. 2. Nor could any necessity arise from the devill whose temptations cannot reach beyond a moral swasion Therefore our Divines doe well argue that if God did not work in our conversion beyond a morall swasion he should no further cause a work good then Satan doth evil Nor could this necessity be of God who made him good and righteous nor would God subtract his gifts from him before he sinned seeing his fall was the cause of his defection not Gods deserting of him the cause of his fall Therefore although God did not give Adam such an help that de facto would hinder hiâ— fall yet he gave him so much that might and ought to preventâ— it And upon this ground it is that we answer all those cavills why God doth command of us that which is impossible for us to doe for the things commanded are not impossible in themselves but when required of Adam he had power to keep them but he sinned away that power from himself and us Neither is God bound as the Arminians fancy to give every one power to beleeve and repent because Adam in innocency had not ability to doe these for he had them eminently and virtually though not formally But more of these things in the Covenant of grace Use 1. To admire with thankfulnesse Gods way of dealing with us his creatures that he condescends to a promise-way to a covenant-way There is no naturall or Morall necessity that God should doe thus We are his and he might require an obedience without any covenanting but yet to shew his love and goodnesse he condescends to this way Beloved not onely we corrupted and our duties might be rejected not onely we in our persons might be abashed but had we all that
received among the Jews about the sense of the Commandments and that was The Law did onely reach to the outward man did only forbid outward acts and that there was no sin before God in our hearts though we delighted in and purposed the outward acts if they were not outwardly committed And this we may gather by Paul that all the while he was bewitched with Pharisaicall principles he did not understand inward lust to be sin and as famous as it is false is that exposition brought by the Learned of Kimchy upon that Psalm 66. 18. If I regard iniquity in my heart he will not hear he makes this strange meaning of it If I regard iniquity onely in my heart so that it break not forth into outward act the Lord will not hear that is hear so as to impute it or account it a sin And thus it is observed of Josephus that he derideth Polybius the noble historian because he attributed the death of Antiochus to sacriledge onely in his purpose and will which he thought could not be that a man having a purpose onely to sin should be punished by God for it But the Heathens did herein exceed the Pharisees fecit quisque quantum voluit its Seneca's saying And indeed it s no wonder if the Pharisees did thus corrupt Scripture for its a doctrine we all naturally incline unto not to take notice or ever be humbled for heart sins if so be they break not out into acts Oh what an hell may thy heart be when thy outward man is not defiled Good is that passage 2 Chron 22. 26. Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart Certainly as God who is a spirit doth most love spirit-graces so he doth most abhor spirit-sins The Schools do well observe that outward sins are majoris infamiae of greater reproach but inward heart-sins are majois reatûs of greater guilt as we see in the devils And from this corruption in our nature ariseth that poisonous principle in Popery which is also in all formall Protestants That the commands of God do onely forbid the voluntary omission of outward acts whereas our Saviours explication will finde every man to be a murderer an adulterer c. Now our Saviours explications of the Law go upon those grounds which are observed by all sound Divines viz. 1. That the Law is spirituall and for bids not onely the fruit and branches of sin but even the root it self and fountain And 2. that wheresoever any sin is forbidden and in what latitude soever the contrary good things are commanded and in that proportionable latitude This therefore considered may make every man tremble and be afraid of his own heart and with him to cry out Gehenna sum Domine I am a very hell it self Let us not therefore be afraid of preaching the Law as we see Christ here doth for this is the great engine to beat bown the formality and Pharisaisme that is in people And thus I come to raise the Doctrine which is that The Law of God is such a perfect rule of life that Christ added no new precept or duty unto it But even as the Prophets before did onely explicate the Law when they pressed morall duties so also Christ and the Apostles when they urge men unto holy duties they are the same commanded heretofore I do not speak of Sacraments or the outward positive worship which is otherwise then was in the Old-Testament they had circumcision and we have Baptisme but of the Morall duties required of us It is true in the Old-Testament many things were expressed more grosly and carnally which the people for the most part understood carnally yet the duties then commanded were as spirituall as now There is onely a graduall difference in the manifestation of the duties no specificall difference of the duties themselves And that this may appeare the more to the dignity and excellency of the Law I will instance in particulars First The Law of God required the heart-worship and service That this may be understood take this for a generall rule which is not denied by any That when there are any Morall duties pressed in the Old-Testament the Prophets do it as explainers of the Law they do but unfold and draw out that Arras which was folded together before This being premised then consider those places in the Old-Testament that call for the heart Thus Pro. 3. 1 Let thine heart keep my commandements So Pro. 23. 26. My sonne give me thine heart So that all the duties then performed which were without the heart and inward man were not regarded God required then heart-prayer and heart humiliation It s true the people for the most part understood all carnally and grosly thinking the outward duty commanded onely and that is no marvell for do not people even in these times of the Gospel look to the externall duty not examining whether they pray or humble themselves according as the Word speaks of such duties Thus David was very sensible of his heart-neglect when he prayed Unite my heart to feare thy Name and are not the people of God still under the same temptations They would pray they would humble themselves but oh how they want an heart That is so divided and distracted that if after any duty we should put that question to it as God did to Satan From whence commest thou it would returne Satans answer From compassing the earth 2. It preferred duties of Mortification and Sanctification before religious outward duties This you shall see frequently pressed and inculcated by the Prophets Isaiah 1. how doth God abhorre there all their solemne duties making them abominable even like carrion and all because they did not wash them and make them clean So David saith A broken and contrite heart it was more then any burnt offering now under the times of the Gospel This is an high duty and few reach unto it Doth not the Apostle reprove the Corinthians for desiring gifts rather then graces and abilities of parts rather then holinesse So that this is an excellent duty prescribed by Gods Law that to be able to mortifie our affections to have sanctified natures is more then to have Seraphicall knowledge and Cherubinicall affections in any duty Who then can be against the preaching of the Law when it is such an excellent and pure rule holding forth such precious holinesse 3. It required all our duies to be done 1. In faith for who can think that when God required in the first Table having him for their God that hereby was not commanded faith and trusting in him as a God in Covenant who would pardon sinne How could the Jewes love God or pray unto him acceptably if they had not faith in him Therefore the Law is to be considered most strictly as it containeth nothing but precepts of things to be done in which sense it is sometimes though seldom taken And 2. more largely as it had the Preface and Promises
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
but of the generall state under the Gospel So in Gal. 2. and 3. Chapters he argueth against the whole dispensation of the Law and makes it equally abrogated unto all And it may probably be thought that that famous expression of the Apostle ye are not under the Law but under grace is not only to be understood of every particular beleever but generally of the whole dispensation of the Gospell under the New Testament 7. We will grant that to a beleever the Law is as it were abrogated in these particulars 1. In respect of Justification Though I say mitigation might be properly here used yet we will call it abrogation with the Orthodox because to the godly it is in some sense so And that which is most remarkable and most comfortable is in respect of justification for now a beleever is not to expect acceptation at the throne of grace in himself or any thing that he doth but by relying on Christ The Papists they say this is the way to make men idle and lazy doing in this matt er as Saul did who made a Law that none should eate of any thing and so Jonathan must not taste of the honey Saul indeed thought hereby to have the more enemies killed but Jonathan told him that if they had been suffered to eate more honey they should have been more revived and inabled to destroy their adversaries Thus the Papists they forbid us to eat of this honey this precious comfort in Christ as if thereby we should be hindered in our pursuit against sinne whereas indeed it is the only strength and power against them 2. Condemnation and a curse Thus still the condition of a beleever is made unspeakably happy Rom. 8. There is no condemnation And Christ became a curse for us so that by this means the gracious soul hath daily matter of incouragement arguing in prayer thus O Lord though my sins deserve a curse yet Christ his obedience doth not Though I might be better yet Christ needeth not to be better O Lord though I have sinned away my own power to do good yet not Christs power to save Heb. 6. 18. you have a phrase there flying for arefuge doth excellently shew forth the nature of a godly man who is pursued by sin as a malefactor was for his murder and he runneth to Christ for refuge and so Beza understands that expression of the Apostle Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him which implyeth the justice of God searching out for him but he is in Christ Now when we say he is freed from condemnation that is to be understood actually not potentially There is matter of condemnation though not condemnation it selfe 3. Rigid obedience This is another particular wherein the Orthodox declare the abrogation of the Law but this must warily be understood for christ hath not obtained at Gods hands by his death that the Law should not oblige and tye us unto a perfect obedience for this we maintain against Papists that it 's a sin in beleevers they do not obey the Law of God to the utmost perfection of it And therefore hold it impossible for a beleever to fulfill the Law But yet we say this mercy is obtained by Christ that our obedience unto the Law which is but inchoate and imperfect is yet accepted of in and through Christ for if there were only the Law and no Christ or grace It is not any obedience though sincere unlesse perfect would be entertained by God neither would any repentance or sorrow be accepted of but the Law strictly so taken would deale as the judge to the malefactor who being condemned by the Law though he cry out in the anguish of his spirit that he is grieved for what he hath done yet the Law doth not pardon him 4. It is not a terrour to the godly nor are they slavishly compelled to the obedience of it And in this sense they are denied to be under the Law But this also must be rightly understood for there is in the godly an unregenerate or carnall part as well as a regenerate and spirituall See Rom. 7. 22 25. with my minde I serve the Law of God but with my flesh the Law of sin Now although it be true that the Law in the terrible compelling part of it be not necessary to him so far as he is regenerate yet in regard he hath much flesh and corruption in him therefore it is that the Scripture doth use threatnings as so many sharpe goads to provoke them in the waies of piety But what godly man is there whose spirit is so willing alwayes that he doth not finde his flesh untoward and backward unto any holy duty How many times do they need that Christ should draw them and also that the Law should draw them So that there is great use of preaching the Law even to beleevers still as that which may instrumentally quicken and excite them to their duty Qui dicit se amare legem mentitur nescit quid dicit Tà m enim amamus legem quà m homicida carcerem said Luther and this is true of us so far as we are corrupt He that saith he loveth the Law lyeth and knoweth not what he saith for we love the Law as a murtherer doth the Gaol 5. It doth not work or increase sin in them as in the wicked The Apostle Rom. 7. 8. Complaineth of this bitter effect of the Law of God that it made him the worse The more spirituall and supernaturall that was the more did his earnall and corrupt heart rage against it so that the more the Law would damm up the torrent of sinfull lusts the higher did they swell Now this sad issue was not to be ascribed to the Law but to Paul's corruption As in the Dropsie it is not the water or beere if frequently drunk that is to be blamed for the increase of the disease but the ill distemper in the body Or as Chysolologus explaineth it Serm. 112. The greatnesse of the light doth not blind and hebetate the eyes for light was especially created of God for them but it is the infirmitie and weaknesse of the eyes which are not able to endure such clearnesse so the Law which of it's selfe is holy and just of fraile man requiring severe obedience doth more and more overwhelme him And in another place Serm. 115. As the thorns that are by the Axe cut downe do more and more sprout out so do corruptions while cut off by the Law because they remain fixed in the root of us Now in the godly because there is a new nature and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God wrought in him his corruption doth not increase and biggen by the Law but is rather subdued and quelled although sometimes even in the godly it may work such wofull effects Thus Asa grew more enraged because reproved by the prophet for his wickednesse And this also take
must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and dark And it is to be observed that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision and even all the Ceremoniall Law as the Morall yea the first rise of the cōtroversie was from that Now all must confesse that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ or grace but rather included them And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative It is true the Jewes they rested upon these and did not look to Christ but so do our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appear from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with blood And this did signifie Christ for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortall man When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour it is to be understood typically even as the sacrifices did wash away sin typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or real some think Christ likewise was the Angell spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and do them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of works God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the promise together making the inheritance by one not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong objections made from those places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture do urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas they reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sin if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seem to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all do acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why do you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministery of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as seperated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTVRE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that selfe confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applyed universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein and Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of works meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees and he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speaks here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they do Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning
no pardon because many of them did fall into such gross sins for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sin against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Now if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin they could not have done it I reply what and if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himself to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sin Why doth he Isa 1. call upon Ierusalem to repent of her whoredoms murders saying If their sins were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole box of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs blood cleansing from all sin I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he mean it universaly They were to confess their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himselfe Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God speaks to the Church that while she was in her blood he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Iews as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isa 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Iews before God called them Did the Iews first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins then all those argumments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our owne righteousness c. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame A Iew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will do something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we were enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Iews Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here meddle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by it's own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unless the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs blood at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himselfe from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it only is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I ask whether God did not justifie David and the ungodly in those dayes from all eternity as they speak and if he did why should not all their sins be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sins pardoned in the like manner In the mean while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sins done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as we God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours if God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say We may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and he much necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore he is called a Lamb slain from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I deny that even under the
of Christ make us to repent of sin and all the love he shewed therein Do not godly Ministers to work people into an hatred of sin tell them the price of blood is in every sin committed Is it not said that they shall look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn for their sins I answer all this is true but then these things work by way of an object not as a command and it is from the Law that we should shew our selves kind unto him who loved us unto death so that the object is indeed from the Gospel but the command to be affected with his death because of his kindness therein manifested doth arise from Gods Law Let therefore those who say that the preaching of the Gospel will humble men and break their hearts for their sins consider how that it is true by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects Let the use of this doctrine be to direct Christians in their practicall improvement of Law and Gospel without hindring each other There are many things in Christianity that the people of God make to oppose one another when yet they would promote each other if wisely ordered Thus they make their joy and trembling their faith and repentance their zeal and prudence the Law and Gospel to thwart one another whereas by spiritual wisdom they might unite them take the Law for a goad the Gospel for a cordial from the one be instructed from the other be supported when thy heart is careless and dull run thither to be excited when thy soul is dejected and fearfull throw thy self into the armes of the Gospel The Law hath a loveliness in it as well as the Gospel the one is a pure character and Image of the holiness of God the other is of the mercy and goodness of God so that the consideration of either may wonderfully inflame thy affections and raise them up LECTVRE XXVIII ROM 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth AS the Physitian saith Peter Martyr who intends to give strong physick which may expell noxious humours in the diseased body doth prepare the body first by some potions to make it fluid and fit for operation so Paul being sharply to accuse the Jews and to drive them out of their selfe righteousness doth manifest his love to them sugaring the bitter pill that they might swallow it with more delight And this his love is manifested partly by his expression brethren partly by his affections and prayers my hearts desire and prayer The occasion of this his affection is the zeale that they have for God but in a wrong way As the skillfull husbandman that seeth a piece of ground full of weeds and brambles wisheth he had that ground which by culture and tillage would be made very fruitfull Amo unde amputem said the Orator I love the wit that needs some pruning The luxuriancie is a signe of fertility This zeale was not a good zeale partly because it wanted knowledge and therefore was like Sampson without his eyes partly because it made them proud which the Apostle fully expresseth in two particulars 1 They sought to establish their owne righteousness They sought this did imply their willfull pride and arrogancy and to establish which supposeth their righteousness was weak and infirme ready to fall to the ground but they would set it up for all that as the Philistims would their Dagon though he was tumbled downe before the Ark. 2. The Apostle expresseth it signally when he saith They submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God In the originall They were not submitted in the passive signification which still supposeth the great arrogancy that is in a man naturally being unwilling to deny his owne righteousness and to take Christ for all This being so take notice by the way of a foule errour of the Antinomian who denying assurance and comfort by signes of grace laboureth to prove that an unregenerate man may have universall obedience and sincere obedience bringing this instance of the Jews for sincere obedience But sincerity may be taken two waies First as it opposeth gross hypocrisie and so indeed the Jews zeale was not hypocriticall because they did not goe against their conscience or Secondly it may be taken as it opposeth the truth of grace and so the Jews zeale was not a true gracious zeale for the reasons above named Now my Text that is given as a reason why the Jews did look to their owne righteousness not that of Gods because they neglected Christ who is here said to be the end of the Law for righteousness The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie the extreme and last end of a thing Thus Mark. 13. 7. The end is not yet so those who are against the calling of the nation of the Jews bring that place 1 Thes 2. ver 16. Wrath is come upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if there were no mercy to be expected But this may admit of another exposition Sometimes the word is used for perfection and fullfilling of a thing acording to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neer bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandment is charity may seem to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fulness of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when he gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to
necessarily by way of consequence inforce the abrogation of the Law And thus though some Antinomians do expresly and boldly assert the abolishing of it at least to beleevers yet those that have more learning and wariness do disclaime it and account it a calumny but even at the same time while they do disclaime it as it is to be shewed presently they hold such assertions as do necessarily inferr the abrogation of it 3. The Law may be doctrinally dissolved by pressing such duties upon men whereby they will be necessitated to breake the commandments of God Thus when the Pharisees taught that whatsoever vow was made concerning any gift they were bound to do it though thereby they were disinabled to honour their parents And this is most remarkably seen in the Church of Rome who by the multitude and necessity of observation of their Church precepts and constitutions make men to break the plain commandments of God Now I shall briefly instance generally about those errours that dissolve Gods Law and then more particularly about the Antinomian doctrine The first Hereticks that opposed it were the Marcionites and Manichees Marcion whom Tertullian calls Mus potincus because of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture to make it serviceable to his errours he among other errours broacheth this That the old Law as he calls it was evill and that it came from an evill god To him in this opinion succeeded Manes who truly might be so called because of his madness although his followers to take away that reproach called him Mannichaeus as much as one that poured forth Manna as some affirme This mans errours though they were very gross yet so propagated that it was two hundred yeares ere they were quieted These and their followers all agreed in this to reject this Law of God There were also Hereticks called Anomi as it were sine lege but their errour was to think that they could by their knowledge comprehend the divine nature And they gave somuch to this their faith that they held Whosoever should imy brace it though he committed hainous and atrocious sins yet thes should do him no hurt Epiphan lib. 3. Haeres 36. But to let pasthese we may say Popery is in a great part Antinomianisme And Antichrist he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that lawless One for is not their doctrine that the Pope may dispense with the Laws of God and that the Pope and Christ have the same Consistory Antinomianisme and in particular we may instance in their taking away the second Commandement out of some Carechismes because it forbiddeth the worshipping of Images Hence Vasquez one of their Goliahs doth expresly maintain that the second Commandement did belong only to the Jews and so not obliging us Christians thinking it impossible to answer our arguments against their Image-worship if that be acknowledged still in force Is there not also a generation of men who do by doctrine deny the fourth Commandement How many late books and practises have been for that opinion But hath it not fallen out according to the later exposition of my Text that they are the least in the Kingdome of heaven men of little account now in the Church while reforming I might likewise speak of some Anabaptists for there are of that sect that disclaim the opinion who overthrow the fifth Commandement by denying Magistracy lawfull for Christians But I will range no further The Antinomians do more fall against this Text then any in that they do not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement but of all even of the whole Law This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time of whom Islebius was the captain he was a School-master and also professor of Divinity at Islebia It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every winde for first he defended with the Orthodox the Saxon Confession of Faith but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim When Luther admonished him of his errour he promised amendment but for all that secretly scattered his errour which made Luther set forth publikely six solemn disputations against the Antinomians that are to be seen in his works which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced and revoked his errour publishing his recantation in print yet when Luther was dead this Euripus did fall into his old errour and publikely defended it Now how justly they might be called Antinomists or as Luther sometimes Nomomachists appeareth by these Propositions which they publikely scattered about in their papers as 1. That the Law is not Worthy to be called the word of God 2. To heare the word of God and so to live is a consequence of the Law 3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel 4. We are with all our might to resist those who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther against which he had his disputations Vol. 1. Sousselberge lib. contra Antin pag. 38. relateth more as 1. The Law doth not shew good works neither is it to be preached that we may do them 2. The Law is not given to Christians therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law 3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel not the Law because Christ did not say Preach the Law but Gospel to every creature 4. The legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us 5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works is blasphemy in Divinity Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text yet at other times the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox Antinomists seemeth to be not Whether a godly man do not delight in the Law and do the works of the Law but Whether he doth it Lege docente urgente mandante the Law teaching urging and commanding As for the latter Antinomians Doctor Taylor and Mr. Burton who preached and wrote against them do record the same opinions of them Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them saith One preached that the whole Law since Christs death is wholly abrogated and abolished Another that to teach obedience to the Law is Popery Another That to do any thing because God commands us or to forbeare any sin because God forbids us is a signe of a morall man and of a dead and unsound Christian Others deliver That the Law is not to be preached and they that do so are Legall Preachers Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or
Gospel that all sins are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meer declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Iustification The forenamed Author hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTVRE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith WE have confuted the false differences and now come to lay down the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into it's opposite Species but of the subject according to it 's severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they do expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of works and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Iews that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Iews did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacramenrs but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1. Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summ of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda things to be beleeved speranda things to be hoped for facienda things to be done Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a vail upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ only to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called Ecclesia but never Synagoge the meeting of the Jews called always Synagoge but never Ecclesia doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called Synagoge although Cameron Praelect de Eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word Synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal and carnal yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins observation shewing that the Jews should first be allured by temporal mercies and afterwards the Christians by spiritual As saith he first that which is animal and then that which is spiritual The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animal was first and then that which is spiritual Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet we see David making God his portion and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meer outward mercies These good things promised to the Jews were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernel and the shell but the Jews for the most part looked only to the outward Hence Christ when he opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernel to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in moral things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and clear as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which he brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law and the Prophets which he must have said if