Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	natural_a	spiritual_a	4,171	5	6.7902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

then the sins of our immediate parents are made ours I know Peter Martyr and hee quoteth Bucer is of a mind that the sins of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity and Austin inclineth much to that way but this may serve to confute it that the Apostle Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one mans disobedience Now if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was why should the accusation be still laid upon him But of this more hereafter 6. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eate of Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also the forbidden fruit We need not run to the answer of some that this was spoken onely by way of threatning and not positively as that sentence upon the Ninivites for these conclude therefore Adam died not because of his repentance but Adam did not immediately repent and when he did yet for all that he died Others reade it thus In the day thou eatest thereof and then make the words absolute that follow Thou shalt die as if God had said There is no day excepted from thy death when thou shalt eate But the common answer is best which takes to dye for to be in the state of death and therefore Symmachus his translation is commended which hath Thou shalt be mortall so that hereby is implyed a condition and a change of Adams state as soon as he should eate this forbidden fruit And by death we are not onely to meane that of the actuall dissolution of soule and body but all diseases and paines that are the harbingers of it So that hereby Christians are to be raised higher to be more Eagle-eyed then Philosophers They spake of death and diseases as tributes to be paid they complained of Nature as a step-mother but they were not able to see sin the cause of this Yea in this threatning we are to understand spirituall death and eternall also Indeed it 's made a question Whether if Adam had continued he should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in Paradise but that his death would have been more then temporall appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed the things that concerne heaven and hell or the resurrection are not so frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New yet there are sufficient places to convince that the promises and threatnings in the Old Testament were not onely temporall as some doe most erroneously maintaine 7. Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden Adam before his sin was immortall fruit And this indeed is a very famous question but I shall not be large in it The orthodox they hold that immortality was a priviledge of innocency and that Adams body then onely became mortall when his soule was made sinfull This is vehemently opposed by Papists and by Socinians now they both agree that man should not actually have dyed but for sin only they say he was mortall as the Socinians or immortall by a meere supernaturall gift of God But a thing may be said to be immortall severall waies as the Learned observe 1. From an absolute A thing may be said to be immortall foure waies necessity either inward or outward in this sense God onely is said to be immortall 2. When there is no inward materiall cause of dissolution though outwardly it may be destroyed and thus are Angels and the soules of men 3. A thing may be said to be immortall by some speciall gift and appointment of God as the bodies glorified and as some say the heavens and maine parts of the world shall have onely a qualitative alteration not a substantiall abolition 4. That is immortall which hath no propensity to death yet such a condition being put it will die and thus Adam was therefore in some sense he may be said mortall in another immortall But because he is commonly called mortall that is obnoxious to death therefore we say Adam before his sin was immortall and this is abundantly confirmed by this sentence of commination And therefore though Adam would have eaten and drunk though his body was elementary and the originall of it dust though he would have begotten children yet none of these can prove him mortall because the righteousnesse in his soule would have preserved the fit temperament of his body especially having Gods promise made to his obedience 8. Whether upon this threatning Thou shalt die can be fixed The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soule as well as body Of all the errours that have risen up there is none more horrid in nature and more monstrous in falshood then this so that if it could be true of any mans soule that it was not an immateriall substance but onely a quality of the temperament it would be true of the Authour of that Book which seemeth to have little sense and apprehension of the divine authority in the Scriptures concerning this matter What an horrid falshood is it to call the doctrine of the immortall soule an hell-hatched doctrine But certainly you would think for a man to dare to broach such an opinion he must have places of Scripture as visible as the Sun But this Text is his Achilles and all the rest shrowd under this from which he frames his first and chiefest argument thus What of Adam was immortall through innocency was to be mortaliz'd by transgression But whole Adam was in innocency immortall Therefore all and every part even whole man was lyable to death by sin But what Logician doth not see a great deale more foisted into the Conclusion then was in the Premises Whole Adam was to be mortaliz'd therefore all and every part What a non sequitur is here That is true of the whole as it is the whole which is not true of every part If I should say Whole Christ dyed for death is of the concrete the person therefore all and every part of Christ dyed therefore his divine nature dyed this would be a strange inference yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built Man is said to be mortall whole man dieth therefore every part of man dieth There is difference between totum and totalitas the whole and every part of that whole It 's true death doth bring the compositum the person to a non-entity but not every part of that compositum to a non-entity Besides that which was immortall is mortalized according to their natures the soule dieth a spirituall and an eternall death But see how the Divell carries this man further and sets him upon the pinacle of errour and bids him throw himselfe head-long because he doth evidently say that if the soules were destroyed as well as the bodies then there

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 The imputation of Christs righteousnesse doth not inferre that therefore wee are more righteous then Adam 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 What God requireth of us is not greater then what hee demanded of Adam in innocency 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 doe 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 certaine 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 saith 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 Divell 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 Adams immortality in the state of innocency different from short of that which shall be in heaven from that which shall be in heaven Yes it is very plaine 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 Againe 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 eate 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 apostacy from God Vse 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 from the beginning if upon thy sick weak and mortall body It was not thus from the beginning Now here is no way to keep up the heart but by looking to Christ Though thou hast lost the image of God yet he is the expresse image of his Father Though thou hast not perfect righteousnesse he hath Whatsoever thy losse and evill be by the first Adam thy gaine and good may be by the last Adam Admire herein the mysteries of Gods grace and love What may wee not expect for temporalls if needfull when he is thus gracious in spiritualls Are riches subsistence equall to Christ Use 2. Of Exhortation not to rest in any estate but that of restauration againe The word as you heard Ephes 1. 10. to gather doth imply that all mankind is like an house fallen down lying in its rubbish and ruines Let us not therefore stay in this condition It 's a condition of sin of wrath Oh much better never to have been borne then to be thus How happy are all the irrationall creatures in their estate above us if not repaired by Christ And know that to be

old Antinomians p. 267 The word As taken variously p. 157 Antidotes against Antinomian errors p. 269 Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace p. 271 B A Blaspheming Monk p. 25 Blaspheming Papists p. 26 The Lay-mans book is the whole universe p. 75 Master Burton his Report of Antinomians p. 268 C A Cordiall for a broken heart p. 21. 22 Contradictions of the Antinomians p. 30 A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature p. 81 Christs Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall p. 132 It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law p. 202 The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law ibid. God entred into Covenant with Adam in giving him a law p. 119. 120 What a Covenant implyes p. 121 Why the Covenane of grace is not still a covenant of workes seeing workes are necessary p. 46 A Covenant of Friendship p. 121 A Covenant of Reconciliation p. 121 No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man p. 122 How God can covenant with man p. 123 Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way rather then in an absolute way p. 124. 125 A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace p. 126 The morall law delivered as a covenant proved p. 220 It hath the reall properties of a covenant p. 221 In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace explained p. 222. 223 Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace p. 224 225 226 Objections answered p. 227 Doctor Crisp confuted p. 13. 14 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 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. 106. 107 Determination to one takes not away naturall liberty nor willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried unto p. 88 Three generall waies of proving the Deity of Christ p. 130 Foure differences not substantiall but accidentall betwixt the law and the Gospell p. 241 c. Five Differences betwixt the Law and Gospell strictly taken pag. 247. 248. 249 c. All Doctrine reduced to three heads credenda speranda facienda p. 242 E THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia and Synagoge confuted p. 242 If the Antinomians end were onely to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of workes to Justification it were more tolerable p. 30. but then their books and end were not reconciliable ibid. Other ends which might make the Antinomians more exousable p. 30. 31 How Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse p. 25. 257 End taken two waies p. 256 Four waies Christ is the perfective end of the Law p. 260. 261 Aquinas distinction of end p. 257 End●xus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 75 Exhortations to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to doe them p. 69 Errours in Doctrine damnable p. 269 F FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers p. 2 How Faith justifies p. 42 Two acts of Faith ibid. Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel p. 252 The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature p. 70 Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first p. 117 Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency and shall be in heaven p. 125 Adams faith considered as an act of the soul not as an organ to lay hold on Christ p. 125 Finger of God p. 149 Finis indigentie assimilationis p. 44 Free-will by nature p. 82 Arguments for free-will answered p. 92. 93 G GEnealogies how usefull and how vaine page 2 How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law p. 57 Who are meant by the word Gentiles p. 56. 57 The Gospel and Law may be compared in a double respect p. 230 The word Gospel taken two waies ibid. Whether the Gospel be absolute or no. p. 249 Gospel taken strictly is not a doctrine of Repentance or holy workes p. 252 All Good morally is good theologically p. 58 Good workes how taken p. 37. 38 Foure things required to the effence of good workes p. 37. 38 The word Grace used sometimes for the effects of grace but more commonly for the favour of God p. 20 Grace is more then love ibid. Grace implyeth indebitum and demeritum of the contrary as Cameron observes p. 21 What grace the Pelagians acknowledge ibid. Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given to it p. 88 H A Two-fold writing of the law in the heart p. 58 The properties of holinesse fixed at first in Adams heart p. 116 Humiliation comes by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects page 253 I IMage and likenes signific one thing p. 111 An Image four-fold p. 111. 112 Wherein the Image of God in man consists page 112. 113. 114. 115 A Thing said to be immortal foure wayes p. 107. The Injudicionsnesse of the Antinomians pa. 30 Whether Adams immortality in innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 136. Some things just because God wills them other things are just and therefore God wills them pag. 4 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifies no more in itselfe then other acts of obedience p. 15 Expecting justification by the Law very dangerous Fifteen evils which follow thereupon mentioned pag. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26 I siebius Captaine of the Antinomians in Luthers daies p. 266 How the justification of the Gospel may stand with the good workes of the Law done by grace p. 37 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification page 42 K KIngdome of heaven not mentioned in all the O. T. p. 243 How Kingdome of heaven is taken in Mat. 5. 17. p. 264 L HOw the Law is good in eight respects p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Four acts of the Law p. 5 The two-fold use of the Law to the ungodly p. 7. A four-fold use of the Law to the godly p. 8. 9 Cautions concerning the Law p. 10 1. The word Law diversly taken ibid. p. 139. 216 2. The Law must not be separated from the spirit p. 11 3. To doe a command out of obedience to the Law and out of love are not opposite p. 12 4. Christs obedience to the Law exempts not us from obedience our selves unlesse it be in respect to those ends for which he obeyed pag. 13 5. The Law condemnes a beleevers sinne though not his person ibid. 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it p. 14 7 Distinguish betwixt what is

to beleeve so far as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject 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 Repentance as it flowes from a regenerate nature reductively the image of God image of God Answ So far 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 far it is reductively the image of God 3. Whether this shall be restored to us in this life againe Howsoever Gods image not fully repaired in us in this life 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 far 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 dyed being restored againe 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 Oh miserable man that I am c. Basil compareth Paul to a man thrown off his horse and dragg'd after him and he crieth out for help so is Paul throwne downe by his corruptions and dragged 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 evill 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 feele the power of Christ As thy soule 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 soveraigne 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 himselfe 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 Doctr. God did not onely as a Law-giver injoyne obedience unto Adam but The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid downe then the covenant of grace after the fall 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 downe 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 drawne 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 evill threatned and the good promised For while That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant appeares 1. From evill threatned and good promised 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 meere promise of God not by any

naturall necessity Life must be extended as far as death now the death threatned was not only 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 2. Because his posterity become guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment 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 owne 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 A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deale 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 to an heire 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 meere 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 definition 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 Tully to maintaine 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 implieth 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 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 doe 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 eate 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 deale 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 waies 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 drowne 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 hee 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

divided To this some answer that the All things here spoken in the text are to be limited to men onely so that the things in heaven shall be the spirits of godly men already translated thither and the things in earth those men that are living But suppose it be extended to Angels yet will not this inferre their need of mediation by Christ but onely some benefit to redound unto them by Christ and that is certaine for first by Christ they have a knowledge of the mysteries of our salvation as appeareth Ephes 3. 10. and secondly hereby they have joy in the conversion of a sinner and lastly Angels become hereby reconciled with man and this seemeth to be the most proper and immediate sense of the place So that I cannot see any ground for that assertion which saith Because there is no proportion between a creature and the Creatour therefore there must be a Mediatour And if this hold true of the Angels then it will also hold about Adam for there being no offence or breach made there needed no Mediatour to interpose It 's hard to say Christ would have been incarnated if Adam had Christs incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall not sinned All those who hold the necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintaine that though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been incarnated Now when the Scripture nameth this to be the principall end of Christs coming into the world to save that which is lost unlesse this had been we cannot suppose Christs coming into the flesh Whether indeed Christ was not the first object in Gods decree and predestination and then afterwards men and then other things is a far different question from this As for Colos 1. which seemeth to speak of Christ as head of the Church that he might have preheminency in all things this doth not prove his incarnation though no fall of Adam but rather supposeth it 3. Whether the tree of life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam or The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam no. For this also is affirmed by some that the tree of life was a sacrament given to Adam which did represent Christ from whom Adam was to receive his life But upon the former grounds I doe deny the tree of life to have any such sacramentall signification It is true I grant it to be a sacrament for there is no good reason to the contrary but that sacraments may be in the state of innocency onely they did not signifie Christ Why it was called a tree of life is not the same way determined by all some think because it had a speciall quality and efficacy with it to preserve Adam immortall for although he was so made yet there were meanes appointed by God to preserve this state But we will not conclude on this only we say It was a sacrament not only to admonish Adam of his life received from God but also of that happy life which upon his obedience he was alwaies to enjoy Hence Revel 2. 7. happinesse is called eating of the tree of life which is in the midst of Paradise We do not in this exclude Adam from depending upon God for all things or acknowledging him the sole authour of all his blisse but onely there was not then that way of administration of good to us as is now by Christ to man plunged into sin And this must be said that we must not curiously start questions about that state in innocency for the Scripture having related that there was such a state once doth not tell us what would have been upon supposition of his obedience 4. And so we may answer that demand Whether there was The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam any revelation unto Adam of a Christ Now what might be done we cannot say but there is no solid ground to assert it for howsoever the Apostle indeed makes a mysterious application of that speech of Adam unto Christ and his Church to set forth their immediate union yet it doth not follow that Adam did then know any such mysterie Indeed Zanchie saith that Christ did in an humane shape appear and put Adam and Eve together in that conjugall band but we cannot affirme this from Scripture And by this also it doth appeare that the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ had this consideration added unto it as it was given to the Jewes afterward and in that respect it was to be abolished That opinion is very much forced which makes those words of Gods blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath day Genes 1. to be by way of anticipation and therefore would deny the command of the Sabbath to be given to Adam saying there was onely one positive law which was that of not eating the forbidden fruit that was delivered unto Adam Now though this be false yet that consideration of the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ was not then in the state of the innocency 5. Another maine question is Whether this state of reparation The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity be more excellent then that in innocency Now here we cannot say one is absolutely better then the other only in some respects one is excelled by the 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 as being neither good or bad but possibly either such an 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 sin to have no blemish nor spot in the soule 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 Emperors 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 The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace 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