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
the Jews doth hinder them from the glory of the Law which was Christ And that this is so doth appeare viz. where the Israelite is denied to look stedfastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in my Text to the end of that ministery which was to be abolished and that end was Christ so that this Text doth fully prove my intent which is that Christ was in some measure a glorious object in the administration of the Law but the vail upon the Israelites heart hindered the sight of it Now saith Paul when it shall turn as we translate or rather when they shall turn for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observed to be used alwayes of persons and though the word be in the singular number in the originall yet according to the custome of Scripture it may be understood plurally because he speaks of a collective body When saith the Text this turning shall be the vail shall be taken away or rather as Camero well observeth in the present tense It is taken away for you cannot conceive that the Jews shall be first turned unto God and the vail afterwards to be taken away but they both are together I will give another instance that Christ was the end of intention or aime in the dispensation of the Law from Galat. 3. 23 24. We were kept under the Law till Faith came Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ In which words not the Morall Law simply taken but the whole dispensation of the Jews is compared to the instruction of a School master Now as a School-master doth not only beat or correct but teach also and direct Thus the Law did not only severely curb and keep from sin but did also teach Christ Hence we are said to be kept under the Law which although some make an expression from the strict keeping and watching which souldiers in a garrison use to make yet a learned man makes it to denote the duty of a School master as one who is to give an account of such committed to his charge In which sense Cain said Am I my brothers keeper The Law then as a School-master did not only threaten and curse or like the Egyptian task-masters beat and strike because the work was not done but did shew where power and help was to be had viz. from Christ only In the second place Christ is the end of perfection to the Law for the end of the Law being to justifie and to bring to eternall life this could not be attained by our own power and industry not by any defect of the Law but by reason of our infirmity Therefore Christ he hath brought about this intent of the Law that we should be justified and have life If the end of humane laws be to make good and honest men much rather is the end of the Morall Law appointed by God himself But the Law is so far from making us good as that it worketh in us all evill which effect of the Law in himself the Apostle acknowledgeth so that as good food and nourishment received by a diseased stomack doth increase the disease more according to that rule Corpora impura quantò magis nutrias deteriora reddis thus it is in every man by nature The Law which is for holiness and life becometh to cause sin and death Christ therefore that the Law may have its end he taketh our nature upon him that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that the meere knowledge of the Law with the externall obedience only to it was not availeable to any benefit Therefore Christ vouchsafeth his holy spirit unto us regenerating of us whereby we come in part to obey the Law of God So that the people of God have a righteousness or holiness of works but it is imperfect and so not enabling us to justification and in this sense it is that the people of God are said to keep Gods commandements So then whereas our condition was so by sin that we were neither able non willing to obey the Law of God in the least degree Christ doth give us grace and cureth us so far that we are said to walk in his Law Now herein was the great mistake of the Jews they gloried and boasted of the Law but how Of the knowledge of it and externall observation without looking to Christ and this was to glory in the shadow without the substance 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his righteousness and obedience unto the Law is made ours and so in him as our surety we fulfill the Law I know this assertion hath many learned and godly adversaries but as far as I can see yet the Scripture seemeth to hold it forth Rom. 5. There is a parallel made of the first Adam and his off spring with Christ the second Adam and his seed and the Apostle proveth that we are made righteous by Christ as sinners in him which was partly by imputation so 2 Corinth 5. ult as Christ is made our sin by imputation so we his righteousness So Rom. 8. 3 4. That which was impossible to the Law God sent his Son that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit I know there are answers made to these places but the proper discussion of them will be in the handling of justification only here is an obvious Objection If the righteousness of Christ be made ours so that we may be said to fulfill the Law then we are still justified by a covenant of works and so there is no new covenant of grace I answer Learned men as Beza and Perkins have affirmed that we obtaine eternall life according to that rule Doe this and live because of Christs fulfilling the Law as our surety for the imputation of it doth not make it cease to be our real righteousness though it be not our inherent righteousness But I see not why we need grant the consequence viz. Because Christs fulfilling of the Law is made ours therefore we have eternall life by the Law and the reason is because this righteousness of Christs is not ours by working but by beleeving Now the Law in that command Do this and live did require our personall working and righteousness so that we cannot be said to have salvation by that rule because it is not the righteousness which we in person have wrought and this will fully appear if you consider in the next place the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness and that is to him that beleeveth he doth not say to him that worketh so that we have not eternall life by our Do this but by beleeving or resting upon Christ his Do this And this phrase doth plainly exclude Stapletons and other Papists observations on this place as if the righteousness by faith or
be found in mine own righteousnesse And this made Luther say Take heed not only of thy sins but also of thy good duties Now if this were all the wine that the Antinomian would drink in Christs cellar if this were all the hony that he would have in Christs hive none would contradict it but we shall shew you the dangerous inferences they make from hence turning that which would be a rod into a serpent 7. It overthroweth the doctrine of imputation and reckoning righteousnesse to us which is spoken of Rom. 4. and in other places I know how this point is vexed divers wayes but this is enough for us If righteousnesse were in us and properly ours what need a righteousnesse be reckoned and imputed to us The Papist maketh imputative and putative and imaginary all one Who can say A lame man say they goeth right because he hath other mens shooes Who can say A deformed Thersites is a faire Absalom because of borrowed beauty But these are easily refuted by Scripture and we shall shew you Christs righteousnesse is as really ours as if it were inherent They differ not in reality but in the manner of being ours Now here the Antinomian and Papist agree in the inferences they make from this doctrine If Christs righteousnesse be ours then there is no sin in us seen by God then we are as righteous as Christ argueth the Antinomian and this absurdity the Papists would put on us 8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties For how must that man be needs tossed up and down which hath no other ground of peace then the works of grace How is the humble heart soon made proud how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly Now you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and feares and James 1. it is made the canker-worm that devoureth all our duties Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that doe oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons as Be not afraid but beleeve so Why doubted ye the word signifieth to be in bivio that a man cannot tell which wayes to take to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up and down as meteors in the aire Now how can a man be bold by any thing that is his By faith we have confidence and boldnesse faith is confidence and faith works confidence but faith whose object is Christ not any thing of ours it 's made the first word also we can speak when we are made sons to cry Abba Father 9. A man may as lawfully joyne Saints or Angels in his mediation with Christ as graces Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious but because it joyneth Christ and others together in that great work Dost not thou the like when thou joynest thy love and grace with Christs obedience The Papist saith Let such and such an holy Saint save me and thou sayest Let my holy love let my holy repentance save me What advantage then hast thou if thou cryest down Saints and then makest thy self one in a Popish way Could therefore thy graces speak they would say as the Angel to John that would worship him Worship thou God worship thou Christ put thy trust in Christ he hath only born our sins so as to take them away and therefore as grosse Idolatry makes the works of God a god so doth more subtle Idolatry make the works of Christ a Christ 10. It overthroweth the grace of hope When faith is destroyed then also hope is This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian now if it be placed in Christ and the Promises it is as firme as faith therefore saith the Apostle of hope Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed but if it were an hope in our selves how often should we be confounded That is good of Austine Noli sperare de te sed de Deo tuo nam si speras de te anima tua conturbatur ad te quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te Do not hope in thy self but God for if so thy soul will never finde ground for security It 's an ignorant distinction among Papists that they may have a certainty of hope but not of faith in matters of salvation whereas they have both the like certainty and differ onely thus faith doth for the present receive the things promised and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties till it come to enjoy them Now to have such an hope as the Papists define Partly coming from Gods grace and partly from our merits Partim è gratia Dei and partim à meritis nostris proveniens must needs be destructive 11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification If you have not meat or drink but by God shall you have pardon of sin without him Abraham beleeved and gave God glory We are apt to account beleeving no glory to God but could we mortifie our corruptions more and more could we exhaust and spend our selves yet this is no more to give glory to God then when we beleeve Now it is good to possesse Christians with this principle To beleeve in Christ is to give glory to Christ we naturally would think to go far on pilgrimages to macerate our bodies were likelier wayes for our Salvation but this would be mans glory more then Gods glory Therefore how did that wretched Monk dying blasphemously say Redde mihi aeternam vitam quam debes Pay me eternall life which thou owest 12. It maketh sin and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation then Christ for salvation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. makes the opposition and sheweth that the gift is far above the transgression Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them there is not more in them to damne then in Christ to save Why should sin be an heavie sin a great sin and Christ not also a wonderfull saving Christ When we say The guilt of sin is infinite that is onely infinite objectivè but now Christs merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them and therefore as sin is exceeding sinfull so let Christ be an exceeding Christ and grace exceeding grace 13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification which declareth it to be inchoate and imperfect that our faith hath much unbelief in it our best gold much drosse our wine much water It is true both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this errour that because sin is covered therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinkle but they doe it upon different grounds whereas Paul Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying who are to pray thus O Lord joyn my obedience with all the suffrings of Christ
next Question is How this Law is said to be written in their hearts You must not with Austine compare this place with that gracious promise in Jeremy of God writing his law in the hearts of his people There is therefore a two-fold writing in the hearts of men the first of knowledge and judgement whereby they apprehend what is good and bad the second is in the will and affections by giving a propenfity and delight with some measure of strength to do this upon good grounds This later is spoken of by the Prophet in the covenant of Grace and the former is to be understood here as will appeare if you compare this with Chap. 1. 19. The last Question is How they declare this Law written in their hearts And that is first externally two waies 1. By making good and wholesome lawes to govern men by and 2. By their practice at least of some of them according to those lawes And secondly internally by their consciences in the comfort or feare they had there Observat There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts And if this be not abolished but that a beleever is bound to follow the direction and obligation of it how can the Antinomian think that the Morall Law in respect of the mandatory power of it ceaseth Now because I intend a methodicall Tractate of the severall kindes of Gods Law you might expect I should say much about Lawes in generall but because many have written large Volumes especially the School-men and it cannot be denyed but that good rationall matter is delivered by them yet because it would not be so pertinent to my scope I forbeare I will not therefore examine the Etymology of the words that signifie a Law whether Lex in the Latine come of legendo because it was written to be read though that be not alwaies necessary or of ligando because a law binds to obedience or of deligendo because it selects some precepts nor concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek whether it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is improbable or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it distributes to every one that which is right neither the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some make to come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instruct and teach others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth a disposition or compiling of things together as lawes use to be In the next place I will not trouble you with the definition of a law whether it be an act or habit or the soul it selfe onely this is good to take notice of against a fundamentall errour of the Antinomian about a law in generall for they conceive it impossible but that the damning act of a law must be where the commanding act of a law is and this is frequently urged as I shewed the last time Therefore observe that there are only two things goe to the essence of a law I speak not of externall causes and that is first Direction secondly Obligation 1. Direction therefore a law is a rule hence the law of God is compared to a light And Prov. 20. 27. there is a notable expression of the law of Nature It 's a candle of the Lord searching the inwards of the belly So it is observed that the Chaldee word for a law is as much as light The second essentiall constitute of a law is Obligation for therein lyeth the essence of a sinne that it breaketh this law which supposeth the obligatory force of it In the next place there are two Consequents of the Law which are ad bene esse that the Law may be the better obeyed and this indeed turneth the law into a covenant which is another notion upon it as afterwards is to be shewn Now as for the sanction of the law by way of a promise that is a meere free thing God by reason of that dominion which he had over man might have commanded his obedience and yet never have made a promise of eternall life unto him And as for the other consequent act of the law to curse and punish this is but an accidentall act and not necessary to a law for it cometh in upon supposition of trangression and therefore as we may say of a Magistrate He was a just and compleat Magistrate for his time though he put forth no punitive justice if there be no malefactors offending so it is about a law a law is a compleat law oblieging though it do not actually curse as in the confirmed Angels it never had any more then obligatory and mandatory acts upon them for that they were under a law is plaine because otherwise they could not have sinned for where there is no law there is no transgression If therefore the Antinomian were rectified in this principle which is very true and plain he would quickly be satisfied but of this more in another place But wee come to the particulars of the doctrine the pressing of which will serve much against the Antinomian Therefore for the better understanding of this Law of Nature consider these particulars 1. The nature of it in which it doth consist and that is in those common notions and maximes which are ingraffed in all mens hearts and these are some of them speculative that there is a God and some practicall that good is to be imbraced and evill to be avoided and therefore Aquinas saith well that what principles of Sciences are in things of demonstration the same are these rules of nature in practicals therefore we cannot give any reasons of them but as the Sun manifests it selfe by its owne light so doe these Hence Chrysostome observeth well that God forbidding murder and other sins giveth no reason of it because it 's naturall but speaking of the seventh day why that in particular was to be observed he giveth a reason because on the seventh day the Lord rested not but that the seventh day is morall as some have denyed but because it 's not morall naturall onely morall positive as the Learned shew 2. The difference of its being in Adam and in us This is necessary to observe for it was perfectly implanted in Adams heart but we have onely some fragments and a meere shadow of it left in us The whole Law of Nature as it was perfectly instructing us the will of God was then communicated to him and howsoever God for good reasons hereafter to be mentioned did give besides that law of Nature a positive law to try his obedience yet the other cannot be denyed to be in him seeing he was made after Gods image in righteousnesse and holinesse and otherwise Adam had been destitute of the light of reason and without a conscience Therefore it 's a most impudent thing in Socinus to deny that Adam had any such law or precept and that hee could not lye or commit any other sin though hee would for it may not be doubted but that
if Adam had told a lye or the like it had been a sin as well as to eate of the forbidden fruit 3. The naturall impression of it in us We have it by nature it 's not a superadded work of God to put this into us This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus who out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God doth labour to shew that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us and that wee have none of these by nature in us And a godly man in his Book of Temptations holdeth the same opinion Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion but he goeth upon a false supposition that the Apostle his scope is to compare a Gentile supposed onely to doe the Law and not asserted to doe it before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law but not a doer of it therefore to debase the Jew he saith the Apostle speaketh conditionally to this purpose If an Heathen should keep the Law though he be not circumcised yet he would be preferred before you not saith he that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such doe and therefore presseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood and is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gentiles c. But his supposition is false for the Apostle's scope is to shew that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemne him because hee hath a law in himselfe as appeareth verse 12. As for the other consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Erasmus render it cum fecerint yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood as well as the Subjunctive It cannot therefore be true which hee saith that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature that if they were true it would necessarily justifie all Pelagianisme I shall not speak of his many arguments against naturall principles and knowledge of a God for he doth in effect at last yeeld to it 4. The extent of it And here it 's very hard to measure out the bounds of the law of Nature for some have judged that to be condemned by the law of Nature which others have thought the law of Nature approveth so true is that of Tertullian Legem Naturae opiniones suas vocant They call their opinions the law of Nature There are foure waies of bounding this law 1. Some make it those generall things wherein man and beast agree as defence of it self and desire of life but by this meanes that of naturall honesty and righteousnesse would be excluded for a beast is not capable of any sin or obligation by a law And howsoever that be much disputed upon Why God would have the beast killed that killed a man yet to omit the thoughts of many about it that was not because a beast could be tyed by a law but God to shew the horridnesse of the fact would have the very instrument punished 2. Some bound it by the custome of Nations that is jus Gentium but that is so diversified that a sin with some was a vertue with others 3. Some doe bind it by reason in every man but this is very uncertaine and one mans reason is contrary to anothers and one mans conscience is larger then anothers even as it is with measures in divers countries though they have the same name as a bushell c. yet they are different in quantity one is larger then another Lastly Others bound it by the will of God declared and manifested first to Noah in seven precepts and afterwards to Moses in the ten Commandements but these extend the law of Nature not onely to first principles but conclusions also deduced from thence 5. The obligation of it when the law of Nature doth bind And that is from God the authour of it God onely is under no law Every beleever though justified by Christ is under the Morall Law of Moses as also the law of Nature but now this law of Nature doth not so properly bind as it's mans reason or conscience as that it is the Vicegerent of God or a command from him and thus Cain by the law of Nature found a tye upon him not to sin and guilt because he did sin in murdering his brother although there was no Morall Law as yet given It is true indeed our Divines doe well reprove the Papists for calling all that time from Adam to Moses a state or law of Nature and this the Papists doe that therefore to offer sacrifice unto God may be proved from the law of Nature whereas those sacrifices being done in faith had the word of God otherwise we were bound still to offer Lambs or Kids to God which they deny 6. The perpetuity of this obligation This Law can never be abrogated And herein we may demand of the Antinomian Whether the law of Nature doe bind a beleever or no Whether he be bound to obey the dictates of his naturall conscience Suppose a beleever hath his naturall conscience dictating to him This sin he may not doe is he not obliged hereunto not onely from the matter for that he grants but as it is a law and command of God implanted in his soule I know there is a difference between the law of Nature and the ten Commandements as may be shewed hereafter but yet they agree in this that they are a rule immutable and of perpetuall obligation Therefore think not that because he dyed to free you from the curse of the Law that therefore you are freed from the obedience unto the law naturall or delivered by Moses To deny this is to deny that a beleever is bound to obey the sure dictates of a naturall conscience I know we are not alwayes bound to follow what conscience suggests for that is obscured and darkened but I speak of those dictates which are naturally known Other particulars as The insufficiency of it to direct in worship as also to save men I do put off and make application of what hath been delivered Use 1. Of Instruction against the Antinomian who must needs overthrow the directive and obligative force of the law of Nature as well as that of Moses Doth not even Nature teach you saith the Apostle Now if a man may not care for Moses teaching need he care for Nature teaching It is true I told you sometimes they grant the Law to be a rule but then afterwards they speak such things as are absolutely inconsistent with it There were some as Wendelinus reports Swencfeldians that held a man was never truly mortified till he had put out all sense of conscience for sinne if his conscience troubled him that was his imperfection he was not mortified enough I should doe the Antinomians wrong if I should say they deliver such things in their books but let them consider
be As a childe whose coat is a little dirty hath it not presently washed but when he falls wholly all over in the dirt this may be the cause of the washing of it so that they are preparations only so far as God intendeth them 6. All determination to one doth not take away that naturall liberty This will further cleere the truth for it may be thought strange that there should be this freedome of will in a man and yet thus determined to one sin onely whereas it 's plaine a determination to one kind of acts good or evill doth not take away liberty God can onely will that which is good and so the Angels and Saints confirmed in happinesse yet they doe this freely and so the Divels will that which is wicked onely It 's true some exclaime at such passages but that is onely because they are prepossessed with a false opinion about liberty for a determination to one may arise from perfection as well as naturall imperfection It is from Gods absolute perfection that hee is determined to will onely good and when Adam did will to sin against God it did not arise from the liberty of his will but his mutability There is a naturall necessity such which determineth a thing to one and that is imperfection but a necessity of immutability in that which is good is a glorious perfection The Learned speak of a three-fold liberty 1. From misery such as the Saints shall have in heaven 2. From sin to which is opposed that freedome to righteousnesse of which our Saviour speaketh Then are yee free indeed when the Son hath made you free and of which Austine Tunc est liberum quando liberatum 3. From naturall necessity and thus also man though hee be necessarily carried on to sin yet it is not by a naturall necessity as beasts are but there is Reason and Will in him when he doth thus transgresse onely you must take notice that this determination of our Will onely to sin is the losse of that perfection we had in Adam and doth not arise from the primaeve constitution of the will but by Adams fall and so is meerly accidentall to it 7. Nor doth it take away that willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried out unto For now if man were carried out to sin against his will and his delight then there might be some shew of pleading for him but it is not so he sinneth as willingly and as electively in respect of his corrupt heart as if there were no necessity brought upon him Therefore that is good of Bernards The necessity takes not away the willingnesse of it nor the willingnesse of it the necessity It 's both an hand-maid and so free and which is to be wondered eoque magis ancilla quò magis libera Hence therefore no wicked or ungodly man can have any excuse for himselfe to say the fates or necessity drove him for besides that by his fault he hath cast himselfe into this necessity and so is as if a man in debt who was once able to pay but by his wilfull prodigall courses hath spent all should think to be excused because he cannot pay Besides I say this just and full answer this also is to be said that no man sins constrainedly but every one is carried on with that delight to sin as if he were independent upon any providence or predefinitive permissive decrees of God or any such corrupt necessity within him Hereby he pitieth not himselfe hee seeth not his undone estate nihil miserius misero non miserante scipsum Hence it is that a mans whole damnation is to be ascribed to himselfe Wee ourselves have destroyed our owne soules wee cannot cast it upon Gods decrees And this is necessarily to be urged because of that naturall corruption in us with Adam to cast our sinne upon God 8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it and yet not give the totall efficacy unto it This is a maine particular to consider for Pelagius and Arminius and Papists all doe acknowledge grace Pelagius it 's noted of him that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion and held grace in every one of them Hee did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam as you heard before yea by this meanes hee deceived all the Easterne Churches and they acquitted him when he said thus If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act wee doe let him be an anathema So Papists and Arminians they all acknowledge grace but not grace enough Gratia non est gratia nisi sit omni modo gratuita As for example First they acknowledge grace to be onely as an universall help which must be made effectuall by the particular will of man so that grace is efficacious with them not by any inward vertue of it self antecedaneous to and independent upon the Will but eventually only because the will doth yeeld and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol homo generant hominem one as the universall cause the other as the particular cause Thus grace and free-will produce a good action grace as the generall cause and free-will as the particular but how derogatory is this to grace how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace For If I should aske Who is the father of such a man it would be very hard to say The Sun in the firmament so it would be as absurd to say Grace regenerated and converted this man Again they make grace a partiall cause only so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to work this or that good thing and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the work of conversion but this supposeth us not dead in sinne 9. Men may naturally performe the outward act of a commandement Now though we be thus corrupt yet for all that men by nature may doe that outward act which is commanded by God or abstaine from the matter prohibited Thus Alexander abstained from the Virgins hee took captives which is so much related in stories and many other famous instances of the Heathens though some indeed think they had a speciall helpe and aide from God to doe that but here the Apostle in the Text is cleare They doe by nature the things of the law Some doe not like that dictinction They may doe the substance of the work but not the manner of a good worke because they think the substance doth comprehend that indeed which makes a good work howsoever they agree that the externall act may be done Thus Ahab hee externally humbled himselfe and some think that Uriah which Esay calls The faithfull witnesse he took to him to be the same with him that brought in the Altar of Damascus so that though he was an idolater and an ungodly man yet hee was reputed a faithfull man in his word And certainly this is something to make many men inexcusable They may
the making up of that covenant I shall handle both those distinctly and first let us consider Gods positive law in the text which is also called by Divines a symbolicall precept because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature but indifferent and only evil because prohibited So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two wayes first by that which is proper to it the tree of knowledge of good and evil secondly by that which is accidentall to it viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it And that this commandement might be the better received in the Verse before God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this When God made this world as a great house he puts man into it as his tenant and by this tryall of obedience he must acknowledge his Land-lord That Adam did eate in the state of innocency and was hungry doth appeare by this text onely hunger was not in him as it is in us with paine and trouble The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine which is That God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heart did give a positive law to try his obedience The doubts in explicating of this point are 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill And here certainly wee must take heed of being too curious lest as it was Adams sin to eate of it so it may be our curiosity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it Now when I aske what is meant by it I doe not understand what kind of fruit or tree it was whether apple or fig that cannot be determined but why it had that name The Rabbins who have as many foolish dreames about the Old Testament as the Friars about the New conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the use of reason and that this tree was to accelerate it And indeed the Socinians border upon this opinion for they say Adam and Eve were created very simple and weak in understanding and say they it 's impossible to conceive that if Adams soule were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces as the firmament is bespangled with stars how he should come to eate of the forbidden fruit or to sin against God But both these are false That he had perfect knowledge appeareth in his giving names to the creatures and to Eve so fitting and apt and Eph. 3. the image of God is said to have a renewed mind and that though thus knowing he did yet sin and though thus holy hee did yet fall it was because hee was not perfectly confirmed but mutable Indeed Divines doe much labour to expresse how his sin did begin whether in the Will first or in the Understanding but that is impertinent to this matter That which is the most received both by Austin and others is that it was so called not from any effect but from the event because it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill and so it 's usuall in Scripture to call that by a name which it had afterward Now though this be generally received and cannot well be rejected yet certainly it may be further said that it was not called so by the meere event but by the divine decree and appointment of God as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam that hee should not desire to know more or otherwise then God had appointed 2. Why God would give a positive law besides that of the naturall law in his heart There are these reasons commonly given 1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged for to obey the naturall law might be a necessary condition and not an act of the Will Even as the Heathens doe abstaine from many sins not because forbidden by God but as dissonant to their naturall reason And even among Christians there is a great deale of difference between good actions that are done because God commands and because of a naturall conscience These two principles make the same actions to differ in their whole nature Therefore God would try Adam by some positive law that so the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth and therefore Adam in this was not to consider the greatnesse or goodnesse of the matter but the will of the commander 2. Another reason which floweth from the former is that so Adams obedience might be the more tryed and be manifested to be obedience For as Austine speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austine doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbelief were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides
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
help my unbelief Lord I love help my want of love He could not complain as that man Libenter bonus esse vellem sed cogitationes meae non patiuntur Yet though his Will was thus good he needed help from God to be able to doe any good thing I know there are some learned Divines as Pareus that doe deny the holinesse Adam had or the help God gave Adam to be truly and properly called grace righteousnesse they will call it and the gift of God but not grace Therefore Pareus reproveth Bellarmine for stiling his Book de gratia primi hominis and his reason is because the Scripture makes that onely grace which comes by Christ and when the subject is in a contrary condition as we are but it was not so with Adam but I cannot tell whether this be worth the while to dispute This is certain first that Adam could not persevere or continue in obedience to God without help from God Nor secondly was he confirmed in a state of goodnesse as the Angels are yea as every godly man now is through Christ and therefore being mutable we may well conceive a possibility of his falling though made thus holy 3. In his Affections 1. These tempests and waves were under the command of that holinesse They were to Adam as wings to the bird as wheels to the chariot and he was not as Actaeon devoured of those that followed him as it is with us for if you consider Affections in the rise of them they did not move or stirre but when holinesse commanded them This is proved in that he was made right Therefore there could not any Affection stirre or move irregularly as it 's said of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he troubled himself There were indeed Affections moving in Christ and so in Adam but they were as clean water moved in a clear glasse but in us they are as water stirred in a muddy place which casteth great defilement Adam therefore being made right he could set his Affections as the Artificer doth his clock to make it strike when and what he will 2. These Affections are subjected in regard of the continuance of them When our Affection and Passions are raised how hardly are they composed again how are we angry and sin how doe we grieve and sin whereas in the state of innocency they were so under the nurture of it that as we command our dogs to fetch and carry and to lay down so could Adam then do bid come fetch such an object and then bid it to lay down again 3. In regard of the degrèes of them We are so corrupted that we cannot love but we over-love we cannot grieve but we over-grieve All our heat is presently feaverish but it was then far otherwise Now then by this righteousnesse you may perceive the glorious image that God put upon us and apply it to us who are banished not onely out of a place of Paradise but out of all these inward abilities and who can deplore our estate enough Thus was the Morall Law written in his heart and what the command is for direction that he was for conversation And howsoever the Socinians deny this law written in his heart yet acknowledging he had a conscience which had dictates of that which was good and righteous it amounts almost to as much Non is it any matter though we reade not of any such outward law given to him nor is it necessary to make such a Question Whether the breach of the Morall Law would have undone Adam and his posterity as well as the transgression of the positive law For all must necessarily think that the Morall Law implanted in his heart and obedience thereunto was the greatest part of Adams happinesse and holinesse Although we told you disobedience unto that positive precept which was onely for tryall might in some sense be judged more hainous then disobedience to the Morall Law In the next place the image of God did consist in a freedome from all feare of misery and danger even proportionably as God is without feare And this happinesse is the consequent of his holinesse And if it be true of the image of God repaired in us that it is to make us serve him without fear all the dayes of our life how much more must it be verified of Adam in that estate And if you demand how Adam could be without feare seeing he knew he might fall and so become miserable the Answer is to be taken from that state wherein he was created having no guilt within him he could have no feare Even as some learned men say the godly shall remember their sins in heaven yet without shame and sorrow because that glorified nature is not capable of it And this is a reason why Eve was not a friend of the Serpent thought it was used by the devill to speak Lastly this image of God consisted in the dominion and soveraignty he had over the other creatures And this was rather a consequent of this image then part of it for when God had declared his will to make man after his image then he also said he should rule over the rest The Socinians indeed make this the onely ground or particular wherein this image doth consist and therefore hold that the woman was not made after the image of God because she was made in subordination to the man But that is easily answered for although she was made in subjection to him yet with dominion over the rest of the creatures Now we might adde also that in his body there was something of Gods image as the impassibility of it and the immortality but these things do not come within my subject We therefore come to shew the properties of this righteousnesse and holinesse that was thus fixed in Adams heart 1. It 's called originall to difference it from actuall holinesse as we call it originall sin to distinguish it from actuall and therefore the Learned call it originall partly in regard of it self because it was the first righteousnesse partly because of Adam who had it as soon as he was created As the Schools say of originall sin Quà m primum originatur homo originatur itidem peccatum so we may of Adam in his righteousnesse In ortu virtus as the Father said In ortu vitium est and partly in regard of his posterity for it should have been propagated to them 2. Another property of this righteousnesse is That it is universall comprehending the rectitude of all the parts and faculties of the soul so that Adam was for his soul as Absalom is said to be comely for his body from the head to the foot no blemish at all so that this was not a perfection in one part onely but all over as our corruption makes us as he said of the Martyr wounded in many places totum vulnus 3. It was harmonious there was not onely rectitude in every part but a
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
soul hath said By one man sin so let it say By one man life LECTURE XIII GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die I Have already handled this Text as it containeth a law given to Adam by God as a foveraigne Lord over him now I shall re-assume this Text and consider it as part of a Covenant which God did enter into with Adam and his posterity for these two things a Law and a Covenant arise from different grounds The Law is from God as supreme and having absolute power and so requiring subjection the other ariseth from the love and goodnesse of God whereby he doth sweeten and mollifie that power of his and ingageth himself to reward that obedience which were otherwise due though God should never recompence it The words therefore being heretofore explained and the Text eas'd of all difficulties I observe this Doctrine That God did not only as a Law-giver injoys obedience unto Adam but as a loving God did also enter into covenant with him And for the opening of this you must take these Considerations 1. That this covenant with Adam in the state of innocency is more obscurely laid down then the covenant of grace after the fall for afterwards you have the expresse name of the Covenant and the solemne entring into it by both parties but this Covenant made with Adam must only be gathered by deduction and consequence This Text cometh the neerest to a Covenant because here is the threatning expressed and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience We are not therefore to be so rigid as to call for expresse places which doe name this Covenant for that which is necessarily and immediately drawn from Scripture is as truly Scripture as that which is expresly contained in it Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandements by way of Covenant 1. From the evil threatned and the good promised For while there is a meere command so long it is a law onely but when it is further confirmed by promises and threatnings then it becomes a Covenant And if that position be true of some which maketh the tree of life a sacrament then here was not onely nudum pactum a meer covenant but a seale also to confirme it And certainly being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature it was of his meere goodnesse to become ingaged in a promise for this I know it 's a Question by some Whether Adam upon his obedience should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in that naturall life which was marvellous happy But either way would have been by meer promise of God not by any naturall necessity Life must be extended as farre as death now the death threatned was not onely a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom. 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deal very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meer Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his etymology of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as a tally to maintain their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implyeth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle
doth in reference to Christs death but more largely for Gods gracious ordering of such mercies and spirituall benefits to us by the death of Christ for the Covenant of grace implyeth Christs death it being a Covenant of reconciliation Now because there is in the Covenant of grace something of a Covenant and something of a Testament also hence some do call it a Testament-Covenant because it is of a mixt nature The rise of the Hebrew word Berith is variously conjectured some make it to come from a word that signifieth to eat because of the sacrifices and feasts that were at a Covenant some from a word that signifieth to cut because then in the striking of the Covenant there was a division of the beast that was killed some from the word that signifieth to create as also to order and dispose things by way of likenesse some from a word that signifieth to be pure and to choose either because it 's by agreement or because in Covenants they ought to deal without all fraud but I stand not upon these things By this which hath been said it may appeare that the Covenant God made with Adam though it be truly called a Covenant yet no wayes a Testament because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam Now to all this that hath been said there must this caution be added That a Covenant is not so properly said to be with God and man as between man and man for among them consent is requisite and doth mutually concurre to make the Covenant valid but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this consent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man Therefore if you regard the use of the word and the application of it it doth denote Gods decree and will or promise about things whether about the irrationall creatures or the reasonable Such was Gods Covenant not to drown the world and Gods Covenant with day and night yea Gods Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumcise his childe And thus it was with Adam Gods Covenant did not depend properly upon his consent and acceptation for he was bound to doe as God commanded whether he would agree or no. That Adams consent was not necessary to make the Covenant valid doth appeare in that he was bound to accept what God did require And it 's indeed disputed Whether Adam did so much as know and if he did not know he could not consent that God did indent with him as a publike person and so all his posterity in him although it may truly be thought that Adam did know this precept to be to him and his posterity for hereby his sinne is made the more hainous in undoing himself and all his as also by the knowledge of this he would be the more thankfull unto God that should propagate such great mercies to him and his and also be made more vigilant against falling 3. In the next place let us consider how God can be said to covenant or enter into a promise with man for it may be thought an imperfection and hereby God may seeme to lose his right that he cannot doe what he will But this may be easily answered for if God can give good things to man he may also promise to give them and therefore both to give and to promise to give are acts of liberality and dominion and so not repugning to the majesty of God Nor doth God by promising to give lose his dominion no more then he doth by giving It is true a promise doth induce an obligation and so in man it is with some imperfection but in God it is not because he doth not hereby become obliged to us but to his own self so that we have not a right of justice to the thing because God hath promised it to us but only God cannot deny himself nor his word and therefore we are confident And so Aquinas well Deus non est debitor quia ad alia non ordinatur sed omnia ad ipsum God by covenanting and promising doth not become a debtor because he is not to be ordered for other things but all things for him Hence is that saying of God Reddit debita nulli debens donat debita nihil pendens And so again Justus est non quia reddit debitum sed quia facit quod decet summè bonum So that when God entreth into a covenant or promise you must conceive of this sutably to his great majesty you must not apprehend of it as when two men agree that are equall and therefore a debt of justice ariseth between them and one may implead the other but as a mercifull condescension on Gods part to promise such things to us that so we might be the more confirmed in our hope in him Hence Durand and Ariminensis labour to prove that Gods promises doe not induce an obligation but denote the disposition of God to give although their arguments exclude onely a debt of justice from God Therefore although in the Covenant God makes with man there is a compact of mutuall fidelity yet there is not a reciprocall and equall right of covenanting because of the inequality of the Covenanters so that the whole disposition and ordering of the Covenant with such conditions is on Gods part and not mans Hence it 's called Gods Covenant and not mans 4. Consider why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere absolute supreme way There may be these Reasons 1. That God might hereby sweeten and indeare himself to us For whereas he might require all obedience from us and annihilate us at last or at least not vouchsafe heaven and ever lasting happinesse to shew how good and loving he is he will reward that most bountifully which is otherwise due to him for God did not make man because he needed him but that there might be objects to whom he would communicate his love Thou needest not my goodnesse or that extendeth not to thee saith David It 's Austins expression The earth doth farre otherwise dry up or swallow the water thirsting for it then the Sun beames which also consume the water the one doth it indigentiâ out of want the other potentiâ out of power and strength so that Adam could not but have thankfull and loving thoughts of God that would thus condescend 2. Another Reason might be to incite and incourage Adam the more to obedience For howsoever there was no sin in Adam or remisnesse yet this might serve as a meanes to preserve him in his obedience to God And here you may see that to do a duty because of a reward promised is not a slavish and unlawfull thing for did not God deale thus with Adam If he would obey he should live but if not then he must dye Will you say with the Antinomian That this was an unlawfull thing and this was to make Adam
legall and one that was not affected with the goodnesse of God to him It is true if a man obey God out of love to any thing more then God or equally with God this is unlawfull according to that Minus te amat qui tecum Domine aliquid amat 3. That hereby Adams obedience might be the more willing and free An absolute law might seeme to extort obedience but a covenant and agreement makes it to appeare more free and willing as if Adam would have obeyed though there could have been no obligation upon him to doe it 5. Consider that the nature of this Covenant was of works and not of faith It was not said to Adam Beleeve and have life eternall but Obey even perfect and entire obedience It is true indeed there was faith of adherence and dependance upon God in his promise and word and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the state of the subject as sinfull which justifying faith doth for it was in Christ who in his temptations and tryalls did trust in God And what the Old Testament calls trusting the New calls beleeving yea some say that this kind of faith shall be in heaven viz a dependance upon God for the continuance of that happinesse which they doe enjoy This faith therefore Adam had but in that Covenant it was considered as a gracious act and work of the soul not as it is now an organ or instrument to receive and apply Christ With us indeed there is justifying faith and repentance which keeps up a Christians life as the Naturalists say the calor innatus and humidum radicale doe the naturall life Faith is like the calor innatus and Repentance is like the humidum radicals and as the Philosopher saith if the innate heat devoure too much the radicall moisture or the radicall moisture too much the heat there breed presently diseases so it is with us if beleeving make a man repent lesse or repenting make a man beleeve the lesse this turneth to a distemper Yet though it were a Covenant of works it cannot be said to be of merit Adam though in innocency could not merit that happinesse which God would bestow upon him first because the enjoying of God in which Adams happinesse did consist was such a good as did farre exceed the power and ability of man It 's an infinite good and all that is done by us is finite And then in the next place Because even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God without the help of God Though some will not call it grace because they suppose that onely cometh by Christ yet all they that are orthodox do acknowledge a necessity of Gods enabling Adam to that which was good else he would have failed Now then if by the help of God Adam was strengthned to do the good he did he was so farre from meriting thereby that indeed he was the more obliged to God 6. God who entred into this Covenant with him is to be considered as already pleased and a friend with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Therefore here needed no Mediatour nor comfort because the soul could not be terrified with any sin Here needed not one to be either medius to take both natures or Mediatour to performe the offices of such an one In this estate that speech of Luthers was true which he denieth in ours Dens est absolute considerandus Adam dealt with him as absolutely considered not relatively with us God without Christ is a consuming fire and we are combustible matter chaffe and straw we are loathsome to God and God terrible to us but Adam he was Deo proximo amicus Paradisi colonus as Tertullian and therefore was in familiarity and communion with him But although there was not that ordered administration and working of the three Persons in this Covenant of works yet all these did work in it Hence the second Person though not as incarnated or to be incarnated yet he with the Father did cause all righteousnesse in Adam and so the holy Ghost he was the worker of holinesse in Adam though not as the holy Spirit of Christ purchased by his death for his Church yet as the third Person so that it is an unlikely assertion which one maintains That the Trinity was not revealed in this Covenant to Adam so that this sheweth a vast difference between that Covenant in innocency and this of grace What ado is here for the troubled soul to have any good thoughts of God to have any faith in him as reconciled but then Adam had no fear nor doubt about it 7. This Covenant did suppose in Adam a power being assisted by God to keep it and therefore that which is now impossible to us waâ— possible to him And certainly if there had been a necessity to sin it would have been either from his nature or from the devill Not from his nature for then he would have excused himself by this when he endeavoured to clear himself But Tertullian speakâ— wittily Nunquam figulo suo dixit Non prudenter definxisti me rudis admodum haereticus fuit non obaudiit non tamen blasphemavit creatorem lib. 2. ad Mar. cap. 2. Nor could any necessity arise from the devill whose temptations cannot reach beyond a moral swasion Therefore our Divines doe well argue that if God did not work in our conversion beyond a morall swasion he should no further cause a work good then Satan doth evil Nor could this necessity be of God who made him good and righteous nor would God subtract his gifts from him before he sinned seeing his fall was the cause of his defection not Gods deserting of him the cause of his fall Therefore although God did not give Adam such an help that de facto would hinder hiâ— fall yet he gave him so much that might and ought to preventâ— it And upon this ground it is that we answer all those cavills why God doth command of us that which is impossible for us to doe for the things commanded are not impossible in themselves but when required of Adam he had power to keep them but he sinned away that power from himself and us Neither is God bound as the Arminians fancy to give every one power to beleeve and repent because Adam in innocency had not ability to doe these for he had them eminently and virtually though not formally But more of these things in the Covenant of grace Use 1. To admire with thankfulnesse Gods way of dealing with us his creatures that he condescends to a promise-way to a covenant-way There is no naturall or Morall necessity that God should doe thus We are his and he might require an obedience without any covenanting but yet to shew his love and goodnesse he condescends to this way Beloved not onely we corrupted and our duties might be rejected not onely we in our persons might be abashed but had we all that
innocency and purity which did once adorn our nature yet even then were we unprofitable to God and it was Gods goodnesse to receive it and to reward it Was then eternall life and happinesse a meere gift of God to Adam for his obedience and love what a free and meere gift then is salvation and eternall life to thee If Adam were not to put any trust in his duties if he could not challenge God for a reward how then shall we relye upon our performances that are so full of sin Use 2. Further to admire Gods exceeding grace to us that doth not hold us to this Covenant still That was a Covenant which did admit of no repentance though Adam and Eve had torn and rent their hearts out yet there was no hope or way for them till the Covenant of grace was revealed Beloved our condition might have been so that no teares no repentance could have helped us the way to salvation might have been as impossible as to the damned angels To be under the Covenant of works is as wofull as the poore malefactour condemned to death by the Judge according to the law he falls then upon his knees Good my lord spare me it shall be a warning to me I have a wife and small children O spare me But saith the Judge I cannot spare you the Law condemnes you So it is here though man cry and roare yet you cannot be spared here is no promise or grace for you LECTURE XIV GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death HAving handled the Law of God both naturall and positive which was given to Adam absolutely as also relatively in the notion of a Covenant God made with Adam I shall put a period to this discourse about the state of innocency by handling severall Questions which will conduce much to the information of our judgement against the errours spread abroad at this time as also to the inlivening and inflaming of our affections practically These Questions therefore I shall endeavour to cleare 1. Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam while innocent so as to be considered either in his naturalls or supernaturalls For this is affirmed by some that Adam may be considered in his meere naturalls without the help of grace and so he loveth God as his naturall utmost end in that he is the preserver and authour of nature or else in his supernaturalls as God did bestow righteousnesse upon him whereby he was inabled to enjoy God as his supernaturall end And for this end is this errour maintained that so man now born may be made no worse then Adam in that condition at first which errour if admitted would much eclipse all that glory which is attributed in Scripture to grace converting and healing of us Therefore to this Question these things may be answered 1. That it cannot be denied but that in Adam such qualities and actions may be considered which did flow from him as a living creature endued with a reasonable soul so 1 Cor. 15. 45. there the first Adam is said to be made a living soul that is a living creature in his kinde whereby he did provide and prepare those things for his nourishment and life that he needed and this is to have a naturall body as the Apostle calls it But we may not stay in the consideration of him as a man in an abstracted notion but as so created by God for that end to be made happy Therefore howsoever some learned speak of the animall state and spirituall estate of Adam yet both must be acknowledged to be naturall to him 2. In the next place we doe not hold in such a manner his righteousnesse and holinesse to be naturall to him as that we deny every thing to Adam that was supernaturall for no question but the favour of God which he did enjoy may well be called supernaturall so also that actuall help of God say some which was to be continued to him For howsoever the principle and habit as it were of righteousnesse was naturall to him yet to have help from God to continue and persevere was supernaturall Even as you see the eye though it hath a naturall power to see yet there is a further requisite to the act of seeing which is light without which it could not be The second question is Whether Christ did intervene in his help to Adam so that he needed Christ in that state For here we see many learned and sound men differ some say that Christ being onely a Mediatour of reconciliation could no wayes be considered in any respect to Adam for God and he were friends Others again make the grace of Christ universally necessary even to Angels and Adam saying that proposition Without me ye can doe nothing is of everlasting truth and did extend to Adam not indeed by way of pardon or reconciliation but by way of preservation and conservation in the state of righteousnesse Thus those excellent pillars in the Church of God Calvin Bucer and Zanchy with others Now for the clearing of this truth we must consider these particulars 1. That it cannot be denyed but that Christ as the second Person of the Trinity did create and make all things This is to be diligently maintained against those cursed opinions that begin even publikely to deny the Deity of Christ Now there are three generall waies of proving Christ to be God 1. In that the name Jehovah and God is applyed to him without any such respect as to other creatures 2. In that he hath the attributes of God which are Omnipotency and Omnisciency c. 3. In that he doth the works which God only can doe such are raising up from the dead by his own power and creation Now that Christ doth create and sustain all things appeareth John 1. Col. 1. and Hebr. 1. 3. so that it 's impudent blasphemy which opposeth clear Scripture to detract this from Christ Indeed his creating of the world doth not exclude the other Persons onely he is included hereby 2. What help the Angels had by Christ Here I finde different thoughts even of the judicious That place Colos 1. 20. To reconcile all things to himself by him whether things in heaven or earth is thought by some a firme place to prove that the Angels needed Christ even as a Mediatour and Calvin upon the place brings two Reasons why the Angels need Christs mediation 1. Because they were not without danger of falling and therefore their confirmation was by Christ But how can this be proved that their confirmation came from Christ and not from God as a plentifull rewarder of their continued obedience Indeed if that opinion of Salmerons were true which holds it very probable that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned but had a set space and time of repentance given them this would with more colour have pleaded for Christs mediation but that opinion cannot be made good
out of the Scripture 2. The second Reason of Calvin is that the obedience of the Angels was imperfect or not so perfect but that it needed pardon which he groundeth upon Job 4. 18. His Angels he charged with folly This may be answered thus That the obedience of the Angels may be said imperfect negatively or comparative in respect of God it is not answerable to his greatnesse but yet it is not imperfect privatively as if it did want any perfection due to it and so was to be pardoned Therefore Eliphaz his expression tends onely to this to shew the Greatnesse and Majestie of God and that even Angels themselves are but darknesse to his glory If you aske then What shall be thought of the place Colos 1. 20 I answer This place compared with Ephes 1. 10. That he might gather together in one all things in Christ may well be laid together for they speak the same thing In the Epistle to the Colossians it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile and that to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word some expound to be as much as to bring to its first beginning and so it 's explained by them that all things have suffered a defect from the beginning and by Christ are to be restored to their former state Others expound it of reducing all to one head which is Christ Others make it a metaphor from those things which are largely set down and then briefly capitulated and summed up again thus say they all that was prefigured by the sacrifices is fulfilled in Christ but we take the word in this sense as it doth imply to gather together those things which were scattered and divided and so it doth excellently describe the ruine and confusion that is brought upon all by sin But then here is the difficulty again how the Angels can be said to be gathered seeing they were never 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 certain 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 not sinned All those who hold the necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain 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 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 alwayes 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 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 Zanchy 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 Gen. 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 main question is Whether this state of reparation 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
no pardon because many of them did fall into such gross sins for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sin against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Now if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin they could not have done it I reply what and if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himself to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sin Why doth he Isa 1. call upon Ierusalem to repent of her whoredoms murders saying If their sins were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole box of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs blood cleansing from all sin I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he mean it universaly They were to confess their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himselfe Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God speaks to the Church that while she was in her blood he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Iews as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isa 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Iews before God called them Did the Iews first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins then all those argumments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our owne righteousness c. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame A Iew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will do something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we were enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Iews Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here meddle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by it's own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unless the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs blood at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himselfe from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it only is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I ask whether God did not justifie David and the ungodly in those dayes from all eternity as they speak and if he did why should not all their sins be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sins pardoned in the like manner In the mean while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sins done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as we God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours if God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say We may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and he much necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore he is called a Lamb slain from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I deny that even under the
his opinion were true but of the Scribes and Pharisees who had corrupted the text with their false glosses I will not consider his other reasons for they are so weak that he seemeth to be afraid of them And certainly it would be strange Divinity to say that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart and not have sinned but now it would be sin in a Christian The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace Hence the Scripture speakes as if they had under the Old Testament none at all meerly because there was not such a plentifull effusion of his Spirit upon them not but that if we consider some particular persons they might have such degrees of grace that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them as Abraham and David but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then So that as one starre differeth from another in glory thus did the Church of the Jewes from that of Christians They had drops but we have the fountaine they had glimmerings but we have the sun it selfe Now as these are priviledges so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge and holiness then was in those dayes But all that the Prophets reproved in their people ignorance selfe confidence resting upon externall duties c. the same may we in our hearers 3. Their condition was more servile All things did press more to fear and bondage then now among us Hence the Apostle Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bond-woman Hence Austine makes Timor and Amor the difference of the two Testaments God met man sinning in the Law as he did Adam with terrour charging sin upon him but under the Gospel as the father did the prodigall son coming home to him See Heb. 12. this difference considered by Paul Yee are not come to Mount Sinai c. Only you must rightly understand this The Jewes had a two fold consideration one as being servile and another of them as sonnes but under age so that they were not wholly excluded from the Spirit of Adoption yea the Apostle saith That the Promises and Adoption did belong unto thom and David doth appropriate God unto himselfe as his God in his prayer which argued he had the Spirit of Adoption inabling him to call Abba Father Now as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage so they were under an outward bondage also opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speakes of whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them In the asserting of this difference one scruple is to be removed which is this How could the Jewes be said to be in more servitude then the Christians meerly because of those ceremonies and sacrifices for seeing they were commanded by God and had spirituall significations they did thereby become helpes unto their faith and were exercises of their piety As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden and tend to bondage because they are visible signes But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us for as Chrysostome observeth if wee had been incorporeall God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments no more then he doth to Angels but now consisting of soul and body he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to helpe us and to promote our faith But this may be answered that although they were spirituall in signification yet they being many and requiring much bodily labour they could not be observed without much difficulty and therefore no priest or Levite that was spiritually minded in those dayes but would rather choose to exercise the ministery under the Gospel then to busie himself in the killing of beasts and fleaing of them which was their duty to do Therefore well did Austine observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments fewer in number easier in observation and more cleare in signification Again those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children and were more convenient to that low condition then unto the full age of the Church and Sacraments though they be an help yet they suppose some imbecillity in the subject therefore in heaven there shall be none at all Only take notice that Popery having introduced so many ceremonious observations and such a multitude of Church-precepts hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of none-age again This also discovereth that such are not spirituall that delight in ceremoniall wayes and the more men fix their heart upon sensible observations the less they partake of spirituall I will instance but in a fourth because these differences are given by most that treate on this subject and that shall be the continuance and abode of it The Law in that Mosaicall administration was to indure but till Christ the fulness came and then as the scaffolds are pulled down when the house is built so were all those externall ordinances to be abolished when Christ himselfe came A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth A School-master is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge Milke is not comely for those who live on solid meat The chaff preserves the corn but when the corn is gathered the chaff is thrown away And when the fruit commeth the flower falleth to the ground And in this sense the Apostle Heb. 7. doth argue against it saying it could bring nothing to perfection Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited which would work all those spirituall mercies for us Hence had there been no farther proceeding but we must alwaies have stayed in such offerings and sacrifices it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us It is therefore in this respect that it was to be antiquated and a better covenant to come in the room of it The Apostle calleth those things Heb. 10. a shadow Now a shadow that doth shew a man but yet the shadow that doth not live or eate or speak so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ but yet they could not exhibite the reall benefits by Christ As Elisha sent his servant with a staff to raise up the Shunamites son but he could doe nothing then cometh the Prophet himself and raiseth him up so it 's here Moses was like the Prophets servant he went with a staff to raise up those dead in sin but could not do it without Christ Here may be one Question made upon these things and that is Why God appointed such various and different administrations This providence of God became a rock to the Marcionites and Manichees insomuch that they denyed the same God to be Author of both the Testaments To answer this certainly God if he pleased could have as clearly revealed Christ
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
Gospel that all sins are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meer declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Iustification The forenamed Author hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTVRE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith WE have confuted the false differences and now come to lay down the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into it's opposite Species but of the subject according to it 's severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they do expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of works and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Iews that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Iews did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacramenrs but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1. Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summ of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda things to be beleeved speranda things to be hoped for facienda things to be done Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a vail upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ only to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called Ecclesia but never Synagoge the meeting of the Jews called always Synagoge but never Ecclesia doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called Synagoge although Cameron Praelect de Eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word Synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal and carnal yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins observation shewing that the Jews should first be allured by temporal mercies and afterwards the Christians by spiritual As saith he first that which is animal and then that which is spiritual The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animal was first and then that which is spiritual Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet we see David making God his portion and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meer outward mercies These good things promised to the Jews were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernel and the shell but the Jews for the most part looked only to the outward Hence Christ when he opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernel to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in moral things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and clear as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which he brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law and the Prophets which he must have said if