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
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
beleever Now it 's impossible that a man should be a beleever and his heart not purified Acts 15. for whole Christ is the object of his faith who is received not onely to justifie but to sanctifie Hence Rom. 8. where the Apostle seemeth to make an exact order he begins with Prescience that is approbative and complacentiall nâ—â— in a Popish or Arminian sense then Predestination then Calling then Justification then Glorification I will not trouble you with the dispute in which place Sanctification is meant Now the Antinomian he goeth upon that as true which the Papist would calumniate us with That a profane ungodly man if beleeving shall be justified We say this proposition supposeth an impossibility that faith in Christ or closing with him can stand with those sins because faith purifieth the heart By faith Christ dwells in our hearts Ephes 3. Therefore those expressions of the Antinomians are very dangerous and unsound and doe indeed confirme the Papists calumnies Another place they much stand upon is Rom. 5. Christ dyed for us while we were enemies while we were sinners But 1. if Christ dyed for us while we were enemies why doe they say That if a man be as great an enemy as enmity it selfe can make a man if he be willing to take Christ and to close with Christ he shall be pardoned which we say is a contradiction For how can an enemy to Christ close with Christ So that this would prove more then in some places they would seem to allow Besides Christ dyed not only to justifie but save us now will they hence therefore inferre that profane men living so and dying so shall be saved And indeed the grand principle That Christ hath purchased and obtained all graces antecedently to us in their sense will as necessarily inferre that a drunkard abiding a drunkard shall be saved as well as justified But thirdly to answer that place When it is said that Christ dyed and rose again for sinners you must know that this is the meritorious cause of our pardon and salvation but besides this cause there are other causes instrumentall that go to the whole work of Justification Therefore some Divines as they speak of a conversion passive and active so also of a justification active and passive and passive they call when not onely the meritorious cause but the instrument applying is also present then the person is justified Now these speak of Christs death as an universall meritorious cause without any application of Christs death unto this or that soule Therefore still you must carry this along with you that to that grand mercy of justification something is requisite as the efficient viz. the grace of God something as meritorious viz. Christs suffering something as instrumentall viz. faith and one is as necessary as the other I will but mention one place more and that is Psal 68. 18. Thou hast received gifts even for the rebellious also that the Lord God may dwell among them Here they insist much upon this yea for the rebellious and saith the Author pag. 411. Seeing God cannot dwell where iniquity is Christ received gifts for men that the Lord God might dwell among the rebellious and by this meanes God can dwell with those persons that doe act the rebellion because all the hatefulnesse of it is transacted from those persons upon the back of Christ. And saith the same Author pag. 412. The holy Ghost doth not say that the Lord takes rebellious persons and gifts and prepares them and then will come and dwell with them but even then while they are rebellious without any stop the Lord Christ hath received gifts for them that the Lord God may dwell among them Is not all this strange Though the same Authour presse sanctification never so much in other places yet certainly such principles as these overthrow it But as for this place it will be the greatest adversary they have against them if you consider the scope of it for there the Psalmist speaks of the fruit and power of Christs Ascension as appeareth Ephes 3. whereby gifts were given to men that so even the most rebellious might be converted and changed by this ministery so that this is clean contrary And besides those words with them or among them are not in the Hebrew therefore some referre them to the rebellious and make Jah in the Hebrew and Elohim in the Vocative case even for the rebellious O Lord God to inhabit as that of Esay The Wolfe and the Lamb shall dwell together Some referre it to Gods dwelling yet doe not understand it of his dwelling with them but of his dwelling i. e. fixing the Arke after the enemies are subdued But take our Edition to be the best as it seemeth to be yet it must be meant of rebels changed by his Spirit for the Scripture useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Gods dwelling in men but still converted Rom. 8. 11. Ephes 3. 12. 2 Cor. 6. 16. LECTURE IV. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully HAving confuted some dangerous inferences that the Antinomian makes from that precious doctrine of Justification I shall at this time answer only one question Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good workes for it 's very hard to repent to love to be patient or fruitfull and not to doe them for this end to justifie us And howsoever theologically and in the notion we may make a great difference between holinesse as a way or meanes and as a cause or merit of salvation yet practically the heart doth not use to distinguish so subtilely Therefore although I intend not to handle the whole doctrine of Sanctification or new obedience at this time yet I should leave my discourse imperfect if I did not informe you how good works of the Law done by grace and justification of the Gospel may stand together First therefore take notice what we meane by good works We take not good works strictly for the works of charity or liberality nor for any externall actions of religion which may be done where the heart is not cleansed much lesse for the Popish good workes of supererogation but for the graces of Gods Spirit in us and the actions flowing from them For usually with the Papists and Popish persons good works are commonly called those superstitious and supererogant workes which God never commanded or if God hath commanded them they mean them as externall and sensible such as Coming to Church and Receiving of Sacraments not internall and spirituall faith and a contrite spirit which are the soule of all duties and if these be not there the outward duties are like clothes upon a dead man that cannot warme him because there is no life within Therefore much is required even to the essence of a godly work though it be not perfect in degrees As 1. It must be commanded by God 2. It
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
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
were of Now say they this spirit is the spirit of the New Testament which is opposed to the Spirit of Elias in the Old The answer is obvious that Christ doth not there oppose the Spirit of the New Testament the Old together but their spirit and Elias his spirit What Elias did he was moved unto by the Spirit of God not for any private revenge but that the glory of God might be illustrated Now this fire of theirs was rash and vindicative It was not elementary fire but culinary nourished by low and unworthy considerations In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour John 8. to the adulteresse where he doth not proceed to the stoning of her but rather freeth her The answer is that Christ in his first coming was not as a Judge and therefore did not take upon him to medle in temporall punishments only as a minister he laboured to bring them unto repentance both the woman and the accusers And whereas againe it 's objected that this way of putting to death is against charity and love of mens souls because many are put to death without any seeming repentance which is presently to send them to Hell The answer is that all Magistrates they are to take care for the salvation of the melefactors soules as much as in them lyeth but if they doe perish in their sins this ariseth not from justice done which is rather to bring them in mind of their sins and to humble them but it cometh from the frowardnesse obstinacy in their owne hearts And in that we see a Magistracy confirmed in the Gospel we need not require an expresse command in the New Testament for the putting of some malefactors to death The third thing which they say was allowed in the Law but forbid by Christ in the Gospel is Warre And certainly we may reade in Antiquity that the Christians did refuse warre but not universally for there were Christian souldiers only there were some peculiar causes why in those times the Christians might decline it As first because in their military oath there was a calling upon a heathen god and their banners lifted up were polluted with idolatry And secondly because they should be forced sometimes to be instruments in accomplishing the Emperours Edicts against the Christians which they would not do Now if we bring places out of the Old-Testament for the lawfulnesse of warrs they care not for say they the laws of Nature and of Moses are to be reformed by the Lawes of Christ God indeed say they gave the Jewes in the Old-Testament leave to fight because they had a temporall inheritance and possession given them which they could not keep but by force of armes now under the New-Testament God hath not done so to his people Thus they say but this is a shift for we know Abraham by a meere law of nature went to war and delivered his nephew Lot being oppressed by enemies By that Warre is allowed by Christ appeareth plainly by comparing 1. Tim. 2. 3. and Rom. 13. where the Apostle would have us pray for Magistrates supposeth that while they are Magistrates they may be Christians and come to the faith so that thereby we may live a quiet and godly life under them now how can this be unlesse they draw their sword upon offenders And if they cannot in an ordinary legall way be brought to judgement then by force of Armes The second knowne argument is from Luke 3. where John Baptist counselleth the souldiers not to lay downe their office but to look to such duties as were necessary to them in that place and which is to be observed these were mercenary souldiers as it is thought they were at that time As for the Objections they are taken from such considerations as will be examined in the next particular only the Orthodox that do hold war lawfull they do acknowledge many rules necessary for the godly and holy managing of it and it is an hard thing to have an holy camp and this made Austin say in regard of the concomitant evils of it that Omne bellum etiam justum esse detestandum yet not but he thought it necessary to have it used when it concerned the glory of God and the good of the publique LECTVRE XX. MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old c. THere remain two Questions more to be decided in this businesse concerning Christs interpretation of the Law of Moses The one is about the lawfulnesse of repelling force by force The other about applying our selves to the Magistrate to defend us against the injury and violence of others Now that I may not be tedious in the discussing of these I will lay down fome few grounds that serve to the clearing of the truth herein and so proceed to other matter although as you have heard this tendeth much to the dignity and excellency of the Law First therefore take notice that there is in all a cursed pronenesse to do things by way of revenge Insomuch that there is not one in a thousand that doth rise up in practise to this excellent way and rule of patience The Heathens they thought to revenge our selves was lawfull Thus Tully It is the first office of Justice to hurt no body unlesse first provoked by injury O quam simplicem veramque sententiam saith Lactantius duorum verborm adjectione corrupit But Seneca he was against this Immane verbum est ultio and Qui ulsciscitur excusatiùs peccat Now whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about the lawfulnesse it 's certain the practises of men are much contaminated this way In State and Civil matters in Church matters what a revengefull spirit breatheth in men This certainly cometh much short of our Saviours Directions There is no injury or violence offered unto thee but in stead of revengefull affections there may be holy mortifying thoughts in thee As when Sheba cursed David see how that brought him to the sense of sinne to look up unto God more then to the instrument All defamations and reproaches may serve to make thy graces more splendent As Plutarch observeth the Gardener planteth his unsavory herbs Garlike and Onyons neer his sweetest Roses that so the smell thereof may be the more prized That was an excellent temper of Calvin when reviled by Luther he said Etiamsi Lutherus millies me diabolum vocet ego tamen illum insignem Domini servum agnosco Although Luther call me a thousand times a Divell yet I acknowledge him an eminent servant of God Why is it that there are such suspicions heart-burnings defamations of one another hard speeches and censures but because this lesson of Christ is not learned by us 2. Consider this that the primitive Christians have gone very farr in this Question holding it unlawfull to defend a mans self from another who would kill us by killing of the Invader Austin saith he
cannot tell how to defend those that do kill the invader and to this purpose others It is maintained by some that though indeed a man is not bound to be killed rather then to kill yet if he do chuse the former rather then the latter he doth a work full of charity and worthy of admiration Another saith these precepts of Christ were given to the Disciples who were by their blood to increase the Church and by their patience and humility to convert tyrants but now modernis non congruit nec locum habet hodie esset enim ad detrimentum Ecclesiae It doth not hold in these latter times for that would be to the prejudice of the Church A foolish assertion As these go too high so the Jesuits in their cases they go too low and give too much roome to the revenge of man for so it 's determined by them That a noble man though he may save his life by flying when invaded suddenly yet is not bound to fly but may lawfully kill the invader If he cannot otherwise preserve his life and honour together But this is corrupt counsell and opens a way to many murders upon a pretence of honour 3. Take notice of this That the Law of God in the Old-Testament was as strict against revenge as any precept in the New-Testament and therefore nothing is now required of us which was not then Consider that place Lev. 19. 16. Thou shalt not avenge or beare any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that do rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old-Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it selfe to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknown to the Fathers in the primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old-Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plaine thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2. Chron. 19. You execute the judgments of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefly these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an â—ntinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification that the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our new birth for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgments of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag. 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to work the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law works onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministry that whether it be by Law or Gospell he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it not for the Gospel-promise Nemo potest implere legem per legem None can obey the Law by the Law meerly Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things we preach may be advantagious to our souls so that there never was in the Church of God meer pure Law or meer pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of conversion The question is not then whether converting grace be ex lege or vi legis of or by the power of the Law but whether it may be cum lege with the preaching of the Law I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias agat Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not meddle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion
Sapiens est cui res sapiunt pro ut sunt he is a wise man to whom things do taste and relish as they are divine and holy things as holy earthly things as earthly and fading then certainly by this Law of God there was true wisdome prescribed Other arguments Moses doth bring as The great authority God put upon the Law The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law from the manner of delivering it Which Law he declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant Now this take notice of that the word Covenant to omit other significations is taken sometimes syecdochially for part of the Covenant as it is here in these words The Doctrine I will insist upon is That the Law was delivered by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant way Or The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant and the reall properties of a Covenant 1. The name of a Covenant 2 King 18. 12. Because they obeyed not the voyce of the Lord their God but transgressed his Covenant and all that Moses the servant of God commanded Deut 17. 2. If there be found any that hath wrought wickednesse in transgressing the Covenant which was the ten Commandements as appeareth ver 3. And more expresly 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord that he made with the children of Israel Yea if we would speake exactly and strictly the books 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 he doth not meane the writings or books 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 which are a mutuall consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod 3 24. from the 3. v. to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not meddle 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 we 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 we have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinkled 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 he may establish them to be a people unto himself and that he may be a God unto them Again 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 wayes And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plain the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle cals it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the books 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 cals 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 Only 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 in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodox and this doth arise from the different places of the 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 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 only 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 speake 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 secondary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact
I rather take it to be so called because the old was to cease and vanish away being before the other in time Now in my method I will lay down the false differences and then name the true The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections And for this they are very resolute granting indeed that Christ and eternall things were promised in the Old Testament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament whereupon they say that grace and salvation was not till Christ came And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Testament they take rigidly and universally as if there had been no eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge That his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seem plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spiritual held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the New Testament hath added more perfect Laws and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though Godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not only command to pray but gave a prescript form of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they go on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and the Gospel capable of no opposite considerarion no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of works and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse errour whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when we speak of the Law and Gospelstrictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediatly to heaven therefore say they we do not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi The blood of Christ is the key of paradise but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I finde such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith he saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which he brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sin and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places he brings Jer. 5. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sin not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jews which God would bring back from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel only for had not the Godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sins viz. Christs blood as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sin in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full grown heirs What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see less sin in their children while young then when grown up and their childishness doth more excuse them And although children only have a rod for their faults yet men grown up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therfore he seeth sin in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest work of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to