of Israel Yea if wee would speake exactly and strictly the bookes of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb. 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament hee doth not meane the writings or bookes but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant 2. In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not medle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore wee see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore wee have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinckled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that hee may establish them to be a people unto himselfe and that hee may be a God unto them Againe you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his waies And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plaine the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle calls it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the bookes and writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian calls the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Onely the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodoxe and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus That it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing onely as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secundary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistles and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousness of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but wee find this in effect Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the
obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses bind because of Moses so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament is binding so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Though indeed this be denyed by all those that are for the negative Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the observation therof was intended for the Church of God perpetually when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Lawes not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jewes So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes The Morall Law is binding 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it 1. In regard of the matter of it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and doe say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians doe professe they doe not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also doe not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speake not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there
then any in that they doe not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement but of all even of the whole Law This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time of whom Islebius was the captaine he was a School-master and also Professor of Divinity at Islebia It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every wind for first he defended with the Orthodox the Saxon Confession of Faith but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim When Luther admonished him of his errour he promised amendment but for all that secretly scattered his errour which made Luther set forth publikely six solemne disputations against the Antinomians that are to be seen in his workes which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced and revoked his errour publishing his recantation in print yet when Luther was dead this Euripus did fall into his old errour and publikely defended it Now how justly they might be called Antinomists or as Luther sometimes Nomomachists appeareth by these Propositions which they publikely scattered about in their papers as 1. That the Law is not worthy to be called the word of God Positions of Antinomians 2. To heare the word of God and so to live is a consequence of the Law 3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel 4. We are with all our might to resist those who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther against which he had his disputations Vol. 1. Thusselberge lib. contra Antin pag. 38. relateth more as 1. The Law doth not shew good works neither is it to be preached that we may doe them 2. The Law is not given to Christians therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law 3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel not the Law because Christ did not say Preach the Law but Gospel to every creature 4. The Legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us 5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works is blasphemy in Divinity Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text yet at other times the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox and Antinomists seemeth to be not Whether a godly man doe not delight in the Law and doe the workes of the Law but Whether he doth it Lege docente urgente mandante the Law teaching urging and commanding As for the later Antinomians Doctor Taylor and Mr. Burton who preached and wrote against them doe record the same opinions of them Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them saith One preached that the whole Law since Christs death is wholly abrogated and abolished Another That to teach obedience to the Law is Popery Another That to doe any thing because God commands us or to forbeare any sin because God forbids us is a signe of a morall man and of a dead and unsound Christian Others deliver That the Law is not to be preached and they that doe so are Legall Preachers Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or Dogs Hogs were such that despised justification living in their swinish lusts Dogs such who sought to be justified by their works Hee tells of one of their disciples that said Away with this scurvie sanctification and that there is no difference between godly here and in their state of glory but only in sense and apprehension Many other unsavoury assertions are named by those Authors but these may suffice to give a taste of their opinions for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus in such falshoods as these are lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses We need not drink up the whole sea to taste whether the water be salt but as a statue that is made of clay yet outwardly so gilded that it seemeth to be gold if any man take a piece of it in his hand and discover what it is doth make every one know what the whole statue is so it is in this case For my part I am acquainted with them no other waies but by their Books which they have written and in those every errour is more warily dressed then in secret There I find that sometimes they yeeld the Law to be a rule of life yea they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists and if so their adversaries may be better called Antifidians And it cannot be denied but that in some parts of their Books there are wholsome and good passages as in a wood or forest full of shrubs and brambles there may be some violets and primroses yet for all this in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs they must be forced to acknowledge it The Author of the Assertion of Free-grace who doth expresly touch upon these things and disclaimes the opinion against the Law pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow For first he makes no reall difference either in Scripture or use of words between the Law reigning and ruling so that if the Law rule a man it reigneth over him Now then they deny that the Law doth reigne over a beleever and so do the Orthodox also therefore they must needs hold that it cannot be a rule unto him And then pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law or rule thereof he addes He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor of Newgate who would rob and kill if his Gaoler be not with him Againe this is most cleere by what hee saith pag. 31. hee refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law but not the damnatory hee makes these things inseparable and as impossible for the Law to be a Law and have not both these as to take the braines and heart from a man and yet leave him a man still Now then seeing he denieth and so doe all Protestant Writers that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law he must also deny he is under the mandatory because saith he this is inseparable I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion Antidotes against Antinomian errours and the Authors thereof Luther calleth them Hostes Legis Organa Satanae he saith their doctrine is more to be taken heed of then that of the Papists for the Papists they teach a false or imperfect repentance but the Antinomians take all away
this way of justification Do not all our Protestant authours maintain this truth as that which discerneth us from Heathens Jewes Papists and others in the world May not these things be heard in our Sermons daily Vse 2. It is not every kind of denying the Law and setting up of Christ and Grace is presently Antinomianisme Luther writing upon Genesis handling that sin of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit speaketh of a Fanatique as hee calls him that denied Adam could sinne because the Law is not given to the righteous Now saith Bellarmine this is an argument satis aptè deductum ex principiis Lutheranorum because they deny the Law to a righteous man Here you see he chargeth Antinomianisme upon Luther but of these things more hereafter Vse 3. To take heed of using the Law for our justification It 's an unwarranted way you cannot find comfort there Therefore let Christ be made the matter of your righteousnesse and comfort more then he hath been You know the posts that were not sprinckled with bloud were sure to be destroyed and so are all those persons and duties that have not Christ upon them Christ is the propitiation and the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for covering and propitiating of sinne is Genes 6. used of the pitch or plaister whereby the wood of the Arke was so fastened that no water could get in and it doth well resemble the atonement made by Christ whereby we are so covered that the waters of Gods wrath cannot enter upon us And doe not thinke to beleeve in Christ a contemptible and unlikely way for it is not because of the dignity of faith but by Christ You see the hyssop or whatsoever it was which did sprinkle the bloud was a contemptible herb yet the instrument of much deliverance LECTURE III. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully IT is my intent after the cleare proofe of Justification by the grace of God and not of workes to shew how corrupt the Antinomian is in his inferences hence from and this being done I shall shew you the necessity of holy and good workes notwithstanding But before I come to handle some of their dangerous errours in this point let me premise something As 1. How cautelous and wary the Ministers of God ought to be in this Ministers ought so to set forth grace and defend good workes as thereby to give the Enemy neither cause of exception nor insultation matter so to set forth grace as not to give just exception to the popish caviller and so to defend holy works as not to give the Antinomian cause of insultation While our Protestant authors were diligent in digging out that precious gold of justification by free-grace out of the mine of the Scripture see what Canons the Councell of Trent made against them as Antinomian Can. 19. If any man shall say Decem praecepta nihil ad Christianos pertinere anathema sit Againe Can. 20. Si quis dixerit hominem justificatum non teneri ad observantiam mandatorum sed tantùm ad credendum anathema sit Againe Can. 21. Si quis dixerit Christum Jesum datum fuisse hominibus ut redemptorem cui fidant non autem ut legislatorem cui obediant anathema sit You may gather by these their Canons that wee hold such opinions as indeed the Antinomian doth but our Writers answer Here they grossely mistake us and if this were all the controversie we should quickly agree It is no wonder then if it be so hard to preach free-grace and not provoke the Papist or on the otherside to preach good workes of the Law and not offend the Antinomian 2. There have been dangerous assertions about good works even by those that were no Antinomians out of a great zeale for the grace of God against Papists These indeed for ought I can learne did no waies joyne with the Antinomians but in this point there is too much affinity There were rigid Lutherans called Flactans who as they did goe too far at least in their expressions about originall corruption for there are those that doe excuse them so also they went too high against good workes Therefore instead of that position maintained by the orthodox Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem they held Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem The occasion of this division was the book called The Interim which Charles the Emperour would have brought into the Germane Churches In that booke was this passage Good works are necessary to salvation to which Melancthon and others assented not understanding a necessity of merit or efficiency but of presence but Flacius Illyricus and his followers would not taking many high expressions out of Luther even as the Antinomians doe for their ground Hence also Zanchy because in his writings he had such passages as these No man growen up can be saved unlesse he give himself to good works and walke in them One Hinckellman a Lutheran doth endeavour by a troope of nine Arguments to tread down this assertion of Zanchy which he calls Calviniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a most manifest error Now if all this were spoken to take men off from that generall secret sin of putting confidence in the good works we do it were more tolerable in which sense we applaud that of Luther Cave non tantùm ab operibus malis sed etiam à bonis and that of another man who said hee got more good by his sins then his graces But these speeches must be soundly understood We also love that of Austine Omnia mandata tua facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur 3. That if the incommodious yea and erroneous passages in Antinomian Authors were used for some reasons hereafter to be mentioned it were the more tolerable but that seemes not to be There is more poyson then can be concocted in them But if this were their ground of many unsavory assertions among them meerly their want of clear judgement to expresse themselves so that they thinke more orthodoxly then they write then they might be excused as being in a logomachy but with this proviso as Austine said of them that used the word fatum in a good sense Mentem teneant sed linguam corrigant Now that there may be injudiciousnesse in them as a cause in part of some of their erroneous passages will appeare in that they frequently speake contradictions This is a passage often but very dangerous that Let a man be a wicked man even as high as enmity it selfe can make a man yet while he is thus wicked and while he is no better his sins are pardoned and he justified Yet now in other passages Though a man be never so wicked yet if hee come to Christ if he will take Christ his sinnes are pardoned now what a contradiction is here To be wicked and while he is wicked and while he is no better and yet to take
It was well said by one that A superstitious man is Gods flatterer and not his friend hee is more officious then needes and where a man is busie ubi non oportet said Tertullian he is negligent ubi oportet Such carnall sensible worshippers are well compared to those that because they have no children delight in birds and dogs so because they have no true graces of the Spirit of God they delight in these imitations 2. To appoint mediatours between us and God This was the 2. Because its prone to appoint mediatours between God and us great Argument of the Heathens they thought themselves unworthy and therefore appointed others to mediate between them and God which Argument of the Heathens some of the Fathers wrote against But doe not the Papists the same thing Doe not they tell us Petitioners at the Court doe not addresse themselves immediatly to the Prince but get Favourites to speak for them so must we to God And therefore Salmeron doth give some reasons why it s more piety and religion to pray to God and Saints together then to God alone But is not this to forget Christ our head who is made nearer to us then Angels are And indeed Angels are reconciled to us by Christ If therefore we follow the light of Nature thus we shall fall into the ditch at last and superstition is never more dangerous then when it s coloured over with the specious colours of Arguments 3. To doe all by way of compensation and satisfaction to God 3. Because it performes all duties by way of compensation merit Upon this ground were all the sacrifices of the Heathens And is not all this with Popery Doe they not make all penall things compensative If they pray that is meritorious if they fast that is satisfactory Hence ariseth that seeming not to spare the flesh Col. 3. ult and the Apostle saith it hath a shew of wisedome But the more like any actions are to worship and wisedome and are not so the more loathsome they are as in an Ape that which makes an Ape so much deformed and loathsome is because it is so like a man and is not a man Vse Of Instruction What hath made the idolatry of the Church of Rome so like Paganish and Ethnicall idolatry Even because they followed their light the light of Nature and Reason Look over all their Paganish gods and they have answerable saints As the Heathens had their Ceres and Bacchus and Aesculapius insomuch that Varro said Discendum fuisset quâ de causâ quisque deorum avocandus esset nè à Libero aqua à Lympho vinum optaretur so here they have their St. Martin for the vineyard Christopher for suddaine death Nicholas for mariners c. And this was done at first they say to gaine the Heathens but the contrary fell out Let us then follow the light of Nature no further then wee ought let her be an hand-maid not a mistresse And then we must take heed of going against her where shee doth truely direct Are there not many not onely unchristian but also unnaturall actions let us remember that LECTURE VIII ROM 2. 14. For the Gentiles c. YOu have heard of two things considerable in the law of Nature the knowledge or light of it and the power or ability of it We shall God willing at this time prosecute the doctrine of the former part and the taske we have at this time is to answer some Questions about the light of the Nature for as there are some who depresse it too much so there are others advance it too high The Philosophers called the Christians Credentes by way of reproach because they did not argue by reason but receive upon trust and there are some who doe not indeed with Abilardus make faith aestimatio a fancy yet they make it ratio Let us see therefore what this light can doe by way of answer to some Questions onely not to answer all The first Question Whether a man can by the light of Nature That there is a God may be known by the light of Nature and by the consideration of the creatures come to know there is a God This is denied by Socinians and others Indeed Bellarmine chargeth tenets to this effect upon Calvin but that which the Protestant Authours hold is that he may indeed have a knowledge that there is a God but what this God is whether he be one and what his attributes are they cannot so reach to Nihil Deo notius nihil ignotius otherwise they say there is no naturall Atheist in opinion though many in affections desiring there were no God As Tully argueth let us take heed how we bring this opinion into the world that there is a God lest hereby we bring a great slavery and feare upon our selves Are there not many Polititians have too much of this poyson in their hearts But of this more anon Onely that there is such a knowledge naturall appeareth by some places as first Rom. 1. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which may be knowne of God for there are some things that by Nature could never be knowne as the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ Now this knowledge is by the book of the creatures This whole universe may be called the lay-mens book Rebus pro speculo utamur we may see the power and wisdome of God in them Tully hath a good comparison As a man that seeth and readeth a book and observeth how every letter is put together to make an harmonious sense must needs gather that all those letters did not fall together by chance but that there was a wise authour in the composing of them so it 's in the world which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none can think such a sweet compagination of all the parts of it should come together meerly accidentally It 's said to be the speech of one Antony much spoken of in Ecclesiasticall story that he called the world a great volume and the heaven and water and earth were the pages and leaves the stars and living creatures were the letters in those pages and how glorious a letter is the Sun when Eudoxus said he was made onely to behold it The waies and arguments by which Naturalists have proved this have not been by demonstrations à priori for that is impossible but by the effects As a man that cannot see the Sun in it selfe it is so dazeling doth look upon it in a bason of water thus we who cannot know God in himselfe know him in the creatures The second proofe is from Psal 19. compared with Rom. 10. where the Psalmist makes the creatures so many tongues speaking a God yea the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eructat doth signifie the plenty and serenity as also the fluid eloquence of the heavens and this is quoted by the Apostle And here two doubts are by the way to be removed first Whether that of Bellarmine and others be
true that the text is here corrupt and Whether the Psalmists meaning be not perverted For the first in the Hebrew it's there line but the Apostle following the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they had read Colam for Cavam But the Answer is that the Septuagint regarded the sense and the Psalmist having spoken before of the words or speech of heaven they therefore interpret according to that sense And by line is meant the Structure and exact composing of all these things which declareth the admirable wisdome of the Maker As for the later it is indeed generally taken as if the Apostle did speak this of the Apostles preaching the Gospel which the Psalmist did of the heavens insomuch that the Lutherans interpret all the former part of the Psalme allegorically Others think the Apostle alledgeth that place allusively not by way of argument as in that place of the Epistle to the Corinthians where the Apostle applyeth the speech about Manna to matter of liberality But Jansenius and Vasquez among the Papists and Beza with others among the orthodox think the Apostle keepeth to the literall meaning of the Psalmist as if this should be the Apostles meaning Israel hath heard for God made known himselfe even to the very Heathens by the creatures how much more to the Jewes by the Prophets Which way soever you take it it proveth that God hath a schoole of Nature by his creatures as well as a schoole of Grace by his Ministers The last proofe is from John 1. He is the true light which enlightneth every man coming into the world for so we think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth referre to man not light though Socinus and Grotius plead much for it Some indeed understand this of the light of Grace but it will be more universally and necessarily true of the light of Reason which is in infants radically though not actually I shall not here relate what unsound Positions an Antinomian Authour hath in a manuscript Sermon upon this place because it is not pertinent So then there is an implanted sense and feeling of a deity which made Tertullian say O anima naturaliter Christiana and Cyprian Summa est delicti nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non potes If you object that the Scripture speaks of the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be understood of a distinct and obedient knowledge of him And as for some Atheists spoken of that have expressedly professed it what they did was partly in derision of the many gods as Socrates and another who needing a fire threw a statue of Hercules into the fire saying Age Hercules XIII laborem subiturus adesto obsonium nobis cocturus Besides they did this with their tongue more then their heart as appeareth by Diagoras who when he had made a famous oration against a deity the people came applauding him and said he had almost perswaded them but only they thought that if any were God he was for his eloquence sake and then this wretch like Herod was content to be thought a god The second Question is Whether the mystery of the Trinity and The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature of the Incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature And here certainly we must answer negatively for the Apostle 2 Corinth 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospell saith It hath not entered into the heart of a man to conceive of them which is to be understood not onely of the blessed joy and peace of those truths but also as they are truths so that all these things are of meere supernaturall revelation Hence we reade that when by reason of the Arrians there was an hot dispute about these mysteries there was a voice heard from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fall of the wise men I doe acknowledge that Austin and others have sought the foot-steps or representations of the Trinity in the creatures yea Nierembergius a Jesuit de origine sacrae Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 3. doth hold that God did intend by the workes of creation to declare the mysteries of graces as by those artificiall things of the Ark Tabernacle and Temple he intended spirituall mysteries but this is false But then they did first know and beleeve this doctrine by Scripture and then afterwards goe to represent it Yet it must be confessed that all these Similies have scarce one foot much lesse foure to run on The Schoole-men speak of the three things in every creature Esse Posse Operari But especially that is taken up about the soule when it understandeth or knoweth and when it loveth and the Son of God is represented by that Verbum mentis and the holy Ghost by Amor. Now here is a mistake for Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1. by John imitating the Chaldee not in respect of any such scholasticall sense but because he doth reveale and make knowne the will of God to us so the union of the humane nature and the divine in one person though learned men give many examples yet none come up to the full resemblance And indeed if you could give the like instance it were not wonderfull or singular We conclude then that the Scriptures are the onely ladder whereby we climb up to these things and our understandings are of such a little stature that we must climb up into the tree of life the Scriptures to see Jesus The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The third Question concerning this naturall light is Whether it be sufficient for salvation For there are some that hold If any man of whatsoever Nation he be worship God according to the light of Nature and so serve him he may be saved Hence they have coined a distinction of a three-fold piety Judaica Christiana and Ethnica Therefore say they What Moses was to the Jewes and Christ to the Christians the same is Philosophy or the knowledge of God by nature to Heathens But this opinion is derogatory to the Lord Christ for onely by faith in his Name can we be saved as the Scripture speaketh And certainely if the Apostle argued that Christ died in vaine if works were joyned to him how much more if he be totally excluded It is true it seemeth a very hard thing to mans reason that the greater part of the world being Pagans and Heathens with all their infants should be excluded from heaven Hence because Vedelius a learned man did make it an aggravation of Gods grace to him to chuse and call him when so many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned this speech as being full of horridnesse a scoffing Remonstrant takes and sets it forth odiously in the Frontispiece of his Book But though our Reason is offended yet we must judge according to the way of the Scripture which makes Christ the onely way for salvation If
other considerations It was the opinion of Osiander that therefore wee are said to be made after the iof God because we are made after the likenesse of that humane nature which the second Person in Trinity was to assume and this hath been preached alate as probable but that may hereafter be confuted when wee come to handle that Question Whether Christ as a Mediatour was knowne and considered of in the state of innocency 3. Let us consider in what that image or likenesse doth consist The image of God in Adam consisted in the severall perfections and qualifications in his soule Where not standing upon the rationall soule of a man which we call the remote image of God in which sense we are forbid to kill a man or to curse a man because he is made after the image of God we may take notice of the severall perfections and qualifications in Adams soul As 1. In his Understanding there was 1. In his Vnderstanding was exact knowledge of divine and natural things an exact knowledge of divine and naturall things Of divine because otherwise he could not have loved God if hee had not known him nor could hee be said to be made very good Hence some make a three-fold light 1. That of imediate knowledge which Adam had 2. The light of faith which the regenerate have 3. The light of glory which the Saints in heaven have Now how great is this perfection Even Aristotle said that a little knowledge though conjecturall about heavenly things is to be preferred above much knowledge though certains about inferiour things How glorious must Adams estate be when his Understanding was made thus perfect And then for inferiour things the creatures his knowledge appeareth in the giving of Names to all the creatures and especially unto Evo Adam indeed did not know all things yea he might grow in experimentall knowledge but all things that were necessary for him created to such an happy end to know those he did but to know that he should fall and that Christ would be a Mediatour these things he could not unlesse it were by revelation which is not supposed to be made unto him So to know those things which were of ornament and beauty to his soule cannot be denied him Thus was Adam created excellent in intellectuall abilities for sapience knowing God for science knowing the creatures and for prudence exquisite in all things to be done 2. His Will which is the universall appetite of the whole man 2. His Will was wonderfully good and furnished with many habits of goodnesse which is like the supreme orbe that carrieth the inferiour with the power of it this was wonderfully good furnished with severall habits of goodnesse as the firmament with stars for in it was a propensity to all good Ephes 4. 24. It 's called righteousnesse and true holinesse and Eccl. 7. 29. God made man upright His Will was not bad or not good that is indifferent but very good The imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only good and that continually And certainly if David Job and others who have this image restored in them but in part doe yet delight in Gods will how much more must Adam who when he would doe good found no evill present with him He could not say as we must Lord I beleeve help my unbeliefe Lord I love help my want of love He could not complaine 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 certaine 1. 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 3. In his Affections regularity and subjection 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 himselfe There were indeed Affections moving in Christ and so in Adam but they were as cleane water moved in a cleare glasse but in us they are as water stirred in a muddy place which casteth great desilement 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 Affections and Passions are raised how hardly are they composed againe 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 downe so could Adam then doe bid come fetch such an object and then bid it to lay downe againe 3. In regard of the degrees 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 Nor 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