relates who called it folly to put confidence onely in Christs bloud We know no godly man satisfieth his own heart in any thing he doth much lesse can hee the will of God Wee cannot at the same time say Lord forgive me and Pay me what thou owest yet these good works though imperfect may be a great comfort unto us as the testimony of Gods eternall love to us Thus did Hezekiah 2 Kings 20. 3. Hezekiah is not there a proud Pharisee but a thankfull acknowledger of what is in him and some consider that this temptation might fall upon Hezekiah that when he had laboured to demolish all those superstitions and now became dangerously sick that hee had not done well therefore he comforts himselfe in his heart that hee did those things with not that he meant an absolute perfect heart but a sincere and comparatively perfect Hence it 's observed the word I have walked is in Hiphil I have made my selfe to walke implying the dulnesse and sluggishnesse and aversnesse he found in his heart to that duty so that prayer being as one calls it well Speculum animi the soules glasse you may gather what was a comfort to him Thus Paul 2 Tim. 4. I have fought a good fight c. It is true those words A crown of Righteousnesse The just Judge and Render doe not prove any merits in Paul as the Papists plead but yet Paul declareth this to keep up his heart against all discouragements We are not therefore to take comfort from them so as to rest in them but so as to praise God thereby It 's a good way nesciendo scire that so wee may praise God for them and sciendo nescire that so we may be humble in our selves 11. They are necessary in respect of God both in that hee is hereby pleased and also glorified When we say They are necessary in respect of God we understand it declaratively to set forth his glory for when God is said to be the end of all our actions and goodnesse he is not finis indigentiae an end that needs them but finis assimilationis an end that perfects those things in making them like him Now two waies they relate to God 1. God is hereby pleased so the Apostle Hebr. 13. Hee is well pleased So that as Leah though blear eyed yet when shee was fruitfull in children said Now my husband will love me so may Faith say Now God will love me when it abounds in the fruits of righteousnesse for our godly actions please God though imperfect onely the ground is because our persons were first reconciled with God Secondly they referre to God so as to glorifie him as his name is blasphemed when we walke in all wickednesse It 's true it 's Gods grace to account of this as his glory seeing it 's so defective 12. They are necessary in regard of others Matth. 5. 17. Let your light shine before men Hee doth not there encourage vain-glory but he propounds the true end of our visible holinesse for godlinesse being light it ought not to be under a bushell Hence both in the Tabernacle and Temple the light was placed in the midst and it ought to extend to others that hereby they may glorifie God in heaven As when we see an excellent picture we doe not praise that so much as the Artificer who made it Wee ought so to walk that men should glorifie God who hath made us so heavenly so humble so mortified Hierome said of Austin that he did diligere Christum habitantem in Augustino so ought we to walk that others may love Christ dwelling in us 1 Pet. 3. 1. it 's an exhortation to wives so to walke that their husbands may be won to the Lord. Thou prayest for thy husband in a carnall condition thou wouldst have him go heare such a Minister and such Sermons see that thy life also may convert him The Apostle by the phrase without the word meaneth the publique preaching so that the wives life may preach to him all the day and that same phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 1. the great price that every mans soule is worth 2. the delight that they ought to take in converting of others even the same that merchants doe in their trade 13. Holinesse and godlinesse inherent is the end of our faith and justification and that is the meaning of our Divines who say Charity or Love of God is the end of faith because God hath appointed this way of justification by faith till he hath brought us into eternall glory and there we have perfect inherent holinesse though even then the glory and honour of all that shall be given to Christ Now indeed it hath pleased God to take another way for our acceptation then shall be hereafter not but that God might if he had pleased have given us such a measure of grace inherent whereby we might have obtained eternall life being without sin and conformable to his will but this way hath pleased his wisdome that so Christ and Grace may be exalted and wee for our sins debased in our selves Therefore good is that of Anselme Terret me tota vita mea namapparet mihi aut peccatum aut tota sterilitas My whole life terrifieth me for I see nothing but sin or barrennesse Only this may make for the excellency of Sanctification that therefore is Christ and Grace and Justification and all that at last we may be made perfectly holy Now some Divines have gone further but I cannot goe along with them As 1. Those that doe give them causality and efficiencie of our justification and salvation And if they should use the word Efficiency in a large sense it might be true but dangerous but otherwise to take Efficient strictly they cannot for so was the covenant of works at first Adams obedience would not have meritoriously but efficiently procured his happinesse Hence by the Apostle faith is not included as works are rejected for they are rejected as efficients of our salvation but faith is included as the instrumentall and passive receiving of it 2. Some learned men have said Though good works doe not merit eternall life for that is wholly purchased by Christs death yet say they accidentall degrees of glory our godlinesse may obtaine but that is not safe for first it 's questioned by some whether there be such degrees at all or no but grant it yet even that must be of grace as well as others Lastly some hold our temporall mercies to come to us by a covenant of workes but not our spirituall this also is hard for we may have these good things either by Christ or else by the forbearance of God who doth not take the advantage against us for our sins I shall say no more of this then by answering a main doubt Object If good workes be still necessarily requisite why then is not the covenant of grace still a covenant of works not as at first in
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
is a contradiction This is a rock that the adversary hath daily refuge unto The Law saith the Antinomian in the matter of it so farre as I know was never denyed to be the rule according to which a beleever is to walk and live Therefore I take the contrary imputation to be an impudent slander Asser of grace pag. 170. But to reply if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule how can they shelter themselves from their own argument for if the matter oblige then when a beleever walketh not according to his duty he sinneth and to sinne the curse is due so that this evasion will no wayes helpe them for still an obligation or bond lyeth upon them which if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law of God Again to say the matter of the Law bindeth but yet not as a Law is a meere contradiction for what is a Law but such an object held forth by the command and will of a superiour Then I demand whether love to God being the object or matter held forth have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should binde According to the Antinomian assertion it should be true that love to God should binde us because the matter it selfe is good but nob ecause God willeth us to love him Nay they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver that such things should be obeyed or avoided And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding and not the Law it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good as To love God to honour parents but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution as Keeping of the Lords Day there we must say that the Law binds as a Law and not meerly from the matter of the Law 5. The Law is no more abrogated to a beleever under the Old-Testament then to one under the New This assertion will much discover the falsenesse of the adversaries opinion for they carry it as if the Law were abrogated only to the beleevers under the Gospell Now how can this ever be made good for either they must deny that there were any beleevers under the Old-Testament or if there were then they are freed from the Law as much as any now Indeed if you take the Law for the whole administration of the Covenant in the Old Testament we grant that it was pedagogicall and more servile so that a beleever under the Old-Testament did not meet with such cleare and evident dispensations of love as a beleever under the Gospel yet in respect of justification and salvation the Law was the same to them as to us and to us as to them We do not deny but that the administration of the later covenant is farre more glorious then that of the former and that we enjoy many priviledges which they did not then but whatsoever is necessary and essentiall to justification or salvation they were made partakers of them as well as we The ordinary resemblance of theirs and our happinesse is by those two spoken of Numb 13. 23. that bare upon the staffe the cluster of grapes from the land of Canaan if then we speake of the Law in regard of the essentiall parts of it which are directing commanding threatning promising life upon perfect obedience These are either still equally in power or else equally abrogated unto all beleevers whether under the Old or New Testament Let them therefore consider whether the arguments against beleevers subjection under the New Testament be not also equally as strong against those that are under the Old Therefore it is wild Divinity of an Antinomian in Chap. 6. of the Honey-combe of free justification who makes three different estates of the Church one under the Law and another under John Baptist and a third under the Gospel Now he compareth these together and sheweth how we under the Gospel exceed those of the Law that were godly and among other things there are two notorious falshoods as first That God indeed saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in those of the New But how absurd and contradictory to the Author himself is this assertion For was not that place which they so much urge God seeth not iniquity in Jacob spoken of the Church in the Old Testament And besides if the godly were then in Christ doth it not necessarily follow by his principles that God must see no sinne in them This I bring not as if there were any truth in that opinion of God his seeing no sinne in beleevers whether of the Old or New Testament but only to manifest their absurd contradictions The second difference he makes is That God seeing sinne in those of the Old Testament did therefore punish them and afflict them for sinne but he doth not this under the Gospel Hereupon he sheweth how Moses for a word was strucken with death and so Jonah Uzzah Eli these had sudden punishments upon them Hence also saith he came there terrible faimines upon them Now who seeth not how weak and absurd these arguments are For doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of those under the New Testament that some were siok and some did sleep and that they were judged of the Lord were not Ananias and Sapphira stricken dead immediately Are there not famines pestilence and the bloudy warre upon men under the Gospel Besides these assertions are contradictions to themselves for if their arguments from Gods Law and from Christ prove the quite taking away of sin and the punishments of it then it holdeth as firmly for all beleevers as for some 6. The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part which they urge do not only overthrow the use of it to beleevers but also unbeleevers This also is good to be attended unto for the Apostle in many places where he speaks of the Law as a Schoolmaster and the continuance of it for a time doth not speake comparatively of a beleever with an unbeleever but of the state of the Gospel and the state of the Old Testament so that as a wicked man may not circumcise or take up the sacrifices so neither may he use the Morall Law as commonly the Jewes did which was as distinct from Christ and as if that of it self were able alone to save Therefore I wonder why the Antinomians bring many of their arguments to prove that a beleever is freed from the Law for certainly most of those places will inferre that unbeleevers also under the New Testament are for the Apostle for the most part doth argue against that state of the Church and administrations that were used formerly as in the 1 Cor. 3. when the Apostle makes the administration of the Law to be death and of the Gospell life Here he speaketh not of particular persons
the scope of the Apostle who speaketh of such a Law that the Jews expected righteousness by in the performing of it which must be the Morall Law only Now when we speak of the Morall Law having Christ for the end of it then in the second place that may be considered two wayes 1. Either rigidly and in an abstracted consideration from the administration of it as it doth require perfect obedience and condemning those that have it not now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope or end of the Law but it is meerly by accident occasionall that a soul abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ only you must know that the Law even so taken doth not exclude a Christ It requireth indeed a perfect righteousness of our own yet if we bring the righteousness of a surety though this be not commanded by the Law yet it is not against the Law or excluded by it otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us 2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration of it by Moses in all the particulars of it and thus Christ was intended directly and not by accident that is God when he gave the Law to the people of Israel did intend that the sense of their impossibility to keep it and infinite danger accrewing thereby to them should make them desire and seek out for Christ which the Jews generally not understanding or neglecting did thereby like Adam go to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakedness their empty externall obedience According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end That an end is two-fold Either such to which a thing doth naturally incline of it self Or secondly that which becometh an end by the meere appointment and ordination of some Agent Now the end of the Law to which naturally it inclineth is eternall life to be obtained by a perfect righteousness in us but the instituted and appointed end which God the Lawgiver made in the promulgation of it was the Lord Christ So that whatsoever the Law commanded promised or threatned it was to stir up the Israelites unto Christ They were not to rest in those precepts or duties but to go on to Christ so that a beleever was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ and when he had found him he was to seek no further but to abide there Now this indeed was a very difficult duty because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour And what is the reason that under the Gospel belevers are still so hardly perswaded to rest only on Christ for righteousness but because of that secret selfe dependance within them Having premised these things I come to shew how Christ is the end of the Law taken largely in the ministry of Moses And in the first place Christ was the scope and end of intention God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience would thereby humble and debase the Israelites so that thereby they should the more earnestly fly unto Christ even as the Israelite stung by a serpent would presently cast his eyes upon the brasen Serpent It is true Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there yet not so but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations And this you have fully set forth in that allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth 3. 7. I shall explain that place because it may be wrested by the Antinomian as if because that kinde of ministery which was by Moses was to be done away and evacuated therefore the preaching of the Law was also to be abrogated but that is far from the Apostles scope for the Apostle his intent there is to shew the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel above that of the Law and that in three respects 1. In regard one is the ministery of death and condemnation the other of life and righteousness Therefore the one is called Letter and the other Spirit Now this you must understand warily taking the Law nakedly and in it self without the Spirit of God and the Gospel with the Spirit for as Beza well observeth if you take the Gospel without Gods Spirit that also is the ministration of death because it is as impossible for us to beleeve as it is to obey the Law by our own power only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel and not to the Law because Christ who is the author of the Gospel is the fountain of life and when any good is wrought by the Law it cometh from the spirit of Christ The second excellency is in regard of continuance and duration The ministery of Moses was to be made void and abolished which is to be understood of that Jewish pedagogy not of every part of it for the Morall as given by Moses doth still oblige us Christians as hath been already proved but the ministery of the Gospel is to abide alwaies that is there is no new ministery to succeed that of the Gospel although in heaven all shall cease The third difference is in regard of glory God caused some materiall glory to shine upon Moses while he gave the Law hereby to procure the greater authority and majesty to the Law but that glory which cometh by the Gospel is spirituall and far more transcendent bringing us at last into eternall glory So that the former glory seemeth to be nothing in comparison of this Even as the light of a candle or torch seemeth to be nothing saith Theophylact when the light of the Sun ariseth Now the Apostle handling these things doth occasionally open an allegory which had not Paul by the Spirit of God found out we neither could or ought to haue done it And the consideration of that will serve much for my present matter I know divers men have divers thoughts about exposition of this place so that there seemeth to be a vail upon the Text as well as upon Moses his face But I shall plainly understand it thus Moses his face shining when he was with God and coming from him doth signifie the glory and excellency of the Law as in respect of Gods counsells and intentions for although the Law did seem to hold out nothing but temporall mercies devoid of Christ and heaven yet as in respect of Gods intention it was far otherwise Now saith the Apostle The Jews were not able to fix their eyes upon this glory that is the carnall Israelites did not behold Christ in the ministery of Moses because a vail is upon their hearts The Apostle makes the vail upon Moses to be a type of the blindness and hardness of heart in the Israelite so that as the vail upon Moses covered the glory of his face so the vail of blindness and stupidity upon the heart of
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
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
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
it was publikely preached in the ministry that the Church did then enjoy as appeareth by Noah's preaching to the old world and Gods striving with men then by his word So that we may say the Decalogue is Adams and Abrahams and Noahs and Christs and the Apostles as well as of Moses Indeed there was speciall reason as you heard why at that time there should be a speciall promulgation of it and a solemn repetition but yet the Law did perpetually sound in the Church ever since it was a Church And this consideration will make much to set forth the excellency of it it being a perpetuall meanes and instrument which God hath used in his Church for information of duty conviction of sin and exhortation to all holiness So that men who speak against the use of the Law and the preaching of it do oppose the universall way of the Church of God in the Old and New Testament 6. The end why God gave this law to them I spake before of the end why he gave it then now I speak of the finall cause in generall and here I shall not speak of it in reference to Christ or Justification that is to be thought on when we handle it as a Covenant but only as it was an absolute rule or law And here it will be a great errour to think the promulgation of it had but one end for there were many ends 1. Because much corruption had now seised upon mankind and the people of Israel had lived long without the publick worship and service of God it was necessary to have this law enioyned them that they might see far more purity and holiness required of them then otherwise they would be perswaded of 2. By this meanes they would come to know sin as the Apostle speakes and so be deeply humbled in themselvs the law of God being a cleare light to manifest those inward heart-sins and soul-lusts that crawl in us as so many toads and serpents which we could never discover before 3. Hereby was shadowed forth the excellent and holy nature of God as also what purity was accepted by him and how we should be holy as he himselfe is holy for the law is holy as God is holy It s nothing but an expression draught of that great purity which is in his nature insomuch that it s accounted the great wisedome of that people of Israel to have such lawes and the very Nations themselves should admire at it 7. The great goodness and favour of God in delivering this law to them And this comes fitly in the next place to consider of that it was an infinite mercy of God to that people to give them this law Hence Deut. 9. and in other places how often doth God press them with this love of his in giving them those commandments And that it was not for their sakes or because of any merit in them but because he loved them So David Psal 147. he hath not done so to other Nations Hosea also aggravates this mercy Hos 8. 12. I have written unto him the great things of my Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplitudines legis meae where the Prophet makes the Law a precious gift deposited in the Jews hands And to this may be referred all the benifits that the Psalmist and Prophets do make to come by the law of God insomuch that it is a very great ingratitude and unthankfulness unto God when people cry down the Law and the preaching of it That which God speaks of as a great mercy to a people they do reject Nor because that God hath vouchsafed greater expressions of his love to us in these latter dayes therefore may those former mercies be forgotten by us seeing the Law doth belong unto us for those ends it was given to the Jews now under the Gospel as is to be proved as much as unto them And therefore you cannot reade one commandment in the spirituall explication of it for the law is spirituall but you have cause to bless God saying Lord what are we that thy will should be so clearly and purely manifested to us above what it is to Heathens yea and Papists with many others Therefore beloved it is not enough for you to be no Antinomian but you are to bless God and praise him for it that it s read and opened in our congregations 8. The perfection of this law containing a perfect rule of all things belonging to God or man And here againe I shall not speak of it as a covenant but meerly as its a rule of obedience And thus though it be short yet it s so perfect that it containeth all that is to be done or omitted by us Insomuch that all the Prophets and Apostles do but adde the explication of the Law if it be not taken in too strict a sense Hence is that commandment of not adding to it or detracting from it And in what sense the Apostle speakes against it calling it the killing letter the ministration of death working wrath is to be shewed hereafter When our Saviour Mat. 5. gave those severall precepts he did not adde them as new unto the Morall Law but did vindicate that from the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees as is to be proved Indeed it may seem hard to say that Christ and justifying faith the doctrine of the Trinity is included in this promulgation of the Law but it is to be proved that all these were then comprehended in the administration of it though more obscurely Nor wil this be to confound the Law and the Gospel as some may think This law therefore and rule of life which God gave the people of Israel and to all us Christians in them is so perfect and full that there is nothing necessary to the duty and worship of God which is not here commanded nor no sin to be avoided which is not here forbidden And this made Peter Martyr as you heard compare it to the ten Predicaments Use Of Admonition to take heed how we vilifie or contemne this Law of God either doctrinally or practically Doctrinally so the Marcionites and the Manichees and Basilides whereof some have said it was carnall yea that it was from Devil and that it was given to the Jews for their destruction because it 's said to work wrath and to be the instrument of death And those opinions and expressions of the Antinomians about it are very dangerous What shall we revile that which is Gods great mercy to a people Because the Jews and Papists do abuse the Law and the works of it to justification shall it not therefore have its proper place and dignity How sacred are the laws of a Common-wealth which yet are made by men But this is by the wise God Take heed therefore of such phrases An Old-Testament-spirit and His Sermon is nothing but an explication of the Law For it ought much to rejoyce thee to hear that
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
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