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
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
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
Law in our souls Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ Instance 1â— Answer 1. Answer 2. Gerhard Instance 2. Answ Instance 3. Answ Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal 3. 2. Errour 1. Errour 2. Errour 3. The Text opened The Law established three wayes by the Gospel 'T is hard to set up Christ and grace and not be thought to destroy the Law The doctrine of Christ and grace doth establish the Law Interprtation dispensation c. affections of a Law We may say that the Morall Law is mitigated as to our persons but 't is not abrogated Three parts of the Law The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant but not as it is a Rule The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth but not as a Law The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Testament Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to beleevers and unbelevers The Law to a beleever is abrogated 1. In respect of justification 2. In respect of condemnation 3. In respect of rigid obedience 4. In respect of tefrour and slavish obedience 5. In respect of the increase of sin 6. In respect of many Circumstantials 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule appears 1. From the different phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law 2. From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever 3. In that disobedience is still a sin 4. Because it differs from other lawes in respect of causes of abrogation Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only answered * Minimum maximi est majus maximo minimi The Apostle argueth against the Law in comparison of Christ The word Law taken in a two-fold sense These Phrases of the Law Without the Law under the Law and In the Law explained A two-fold being under the Law The commonly received sense of that Phrase Not to be under this Law rejected Beza's inrerpretation of the phrase approv'd Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant appears 1. In that it haâ—h the name of a Covenant 2 In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Obiections impugning the former Arguments answered The words opened The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. Doctr. The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect The different use of the word Law carefully to be observed What meant by Law taken largely and what strictly False differences between the Law and the Gospel 1. Of Anabaptists and Socinians affirming That they under the Law in the Old Testament enioyed only temporall blessings 2. Of Papists 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Laws under the New Testament 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no oposite consideration 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immedatly to heaven 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New 2. That the Covenant God made with the Iews this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants 3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel not so under the law because no sacrifice save for sins of ignorance Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance 2. No legall sâ—crifice therefore no remission oâ— sin in consequent 3. The sin against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel 5 That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall only Heavenly obiects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old 1. It is so for the credenda 2. For the speranda 3. For the facienda The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel then under the Law The Iews under the Law were in a more servile condition then Christians under the Gospel The continuation of the Law was to last but till the coming of Christ Difference between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken 1. The Law in some measure is known by the light of Nature but the truth of the Gospel must be wholly revealed by God 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness the Gospel brings pardon through Christ 3. If righteousness were by the Law eternall life were a debt but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel for broken-hearted sinners 5. The Law conditional the Gospel absolute Repentance strictly taken is distinguished from Faith The Law and the Gospel are inseperably united in the Word and Ministery Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel Vnbeliefe a sin against the Law as well as the Gospel The Gospel taken strictly comprehends no more then the glad tidings of a Saviour Zeal that either wants knowledge or puffs up no good zeale Sincerity taken two waies The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law 2 Cot. 3. 7. opened The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation 2. Because of its duration it being to abide alwayes but the ministery of Moses to be abolished 3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spirituall that which shone upon Moses but materiall What signified by the shining of Moses his face 2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in vouchsafing us his Spirit that we may obey it 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his obedience to it is made curs Object Aâ—sw The belâ—ever is the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness Righteousness is the end for which Christ is thus the perfection of the Law The beleever hath great cause to bless God for providing such a righteousness for him The Text opened What meant by Kingdom of heaven Doctr. The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law Covertly there waies 1 When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is 2 VVhen they hold principles by necessary consequence inforcing the abrogation of it 3. VVhen they press such duties up on men as will necessitate them to break the commandements of God The Marcionites and Manichees the first oppugners of the Law Postions of Antinomians Antidotes against Antinomian errours 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damn thee 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace