other differences which I shall observe or which as I suppose are observable have their rise which are these following The covenant of Works or as learned Camero calls it the covenant of Nature was for preservation of man in life that is in present blisse and happinesse to hold him in the condition in which it found him which is implyed in the penalty threatned as was before noted man must not die till sinne enter and exprest in that promise of God Do this and live His life must be continued as long as his obedience lasted his happinesse must have been perpetuated though not necessarily in the same degree God might have translated him from a life on earth to a life in heaven had he kept to the terms of the covenant The covenant of grace is for mans restitution reconciliation and recovery He was before in blisse and if he had so abode he might with good reason have taken up Peters words It is good for us to be here Now he is in misery and must be restored if ever he be blessed and so a farther difference doth arise The covenant of works had its precedency was first in time The covenant of grace in order of time follows after This must needs follow Mans estate in integrity being before his fall the covenant made in his integrity must needs precede the covenant entred into in his fallen condition unlesse we will place the third of Genesis before the first the fall of man before his creation And therefore that is utterly a mistake in one who in the very entrance upon his Treatise of the two covenants gives the covenant of grace the precedency in time giving this as his reason why he places the covenant of Grace before the covenant of Works because the covenant of Grace was in being before the covenant of Works quoting for proof Gal. 3. 17. The covenant which was made before of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanul But this can by no means serve his purpose unlesse we should conclude that the covenant of Works had its beginning in Mount Sinai at the giving of the Law by Moses and the covenant of Grace of only four hundred and thirty yeares more ancient standing And that will as little serve his purpose which he after brings in that there was an agreement and covenant between God the Father and his Sonne Jesus Christ about the salvation of man before Adam sinned yea before the world began Seeing that covenant between the first and second person of the Trinity was not the covenant which he hath in hand to treat upon namely the covenant which God entred with man as he himself confesses No covenant can be made with man before man be in being A noâ—ens can be no party in a covenant And whereas we are told that the same covenant which was made with Jesus Christ before time was afterwards made with man I desire that all would observe what is laid down in that Treatise concerning that covenant Christ for his part was by covenant to become a Mediatour Surety and Saviour for all those that his Father should give him And must we become such Mediatours Sureties and Saviours also God the Father did promise to Christ as is further said all the things that did belong to his Mediatourship and things to gratifie and satisfie him for his Mediatourship May we by covenant expect such things from the Father likewise If we are neither tied to the same work to which Christ by covenant was tied nor are to receive the like gifts as he by covenant was to expect we are not in the same covenant that past between the Father and Christ And though these two were one which must not be yeelded the covenants ad intra which the persons of the Trinity make with themseâ—es and those ad extra with the creature may not be confounded yet that would evince no such precedence in time seeing there was alike agreement in the whole Trinity for the creation of man and Gods covenant with him in his integrity as is fully assented to in the same Treatise to the utter overthrow of all that which upon the former supposition he had built To that question To what end should the covenant of Grace be made before man stood in need of Grace he answers Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world And he had all things then as present and real before the eyes of his glory as now he hath viz. Mans Creation Fall Recovery and in this sense there was no precedency of time in regard of any of Gods Counsels or secret actions And then there can be no precedency of one of his covenants before another we must finde then a sense according to which there is a precedency which is not found in any covenants of the Trinity among themselves which in exact propriety of speech are purposes rather then covenants and were before all time but in the actual entrance and assent by the creature given which is in time and admits precedency In which consideration the covenant of works hath its precedency before that of Grace as the state of integrity was before the fall Whence farther yet follows that the covenant of works was but a small time in force at least but a small time of use only during the space of mans integrity which some say was only one day in all probability not long in that man enjoyed no fruit of that blessing in Paradise Increase and multiply But this second is of everlasting continuance when the first Covenant was violated by our first parents and so made uselesse that of grace succeeded which is our only planck after shipwrack but none shall ever succeed this second Adam failing of salvation by the covenant of Works which he entred in the first place is saved by the covenant of grace into which after his fall he entred and into which he was of grace admitted but he that is not saved by the second must everlastingly perish and so I understand that text Heb. 10. 26. If we sinne wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth then there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes but a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation where by sinning wilfully I understand an utter rejection of Gods tender of this sacrifice of Christs blood which I gather from the Apostle in the words that follow the proof that he brings of that sad assertion He that despised Moses Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy that hath trodden under foot the blood of the Sonne of God and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing This is that wilful sinne of which there is no expiation When man had cast off the yoke a sacrifice was found Christ made his soul an
opposition to Judaisme Heathenisme it needs not to be doubted and that implies a covenant What farther is desired must be lest to the blessing of God by providence on Ordinances The want of piety in the Parent is supplied by the piety of the Church into which the infant is received Seventhly saith he If the Predecessour may by this promise give right to Baptisme without the immediate Parent then I pray you tell us how farre we may go for this Predecessour how many generations Where hath Gods Word limited Ministers you may go to this Predecessour and no farther 1. I know few that say the Predecessour gives right without the immediate Parent but all concurre in a joynt way to communicate a covenant-interest but his question may have an easie answer 2. I demand in titles of Honour and inheritance of Lands which men claime by descent from their Ancestors where it is that they stay It will be soon answered that they stay when they can rise no higher to finde any other Predecessours vested in such honours or such inheritance Some can make no claim at all from Parents they are the first of their house of honour or inheritance This was the case of Abraham he had no interest from Terah such was the case of the Primitive Converts and such is the case of the Indians that now by a gracious providence are converted by the English Some can go no farther then their immediate Parents they were the first in honour or that gained an inheritance to their house This was the case of Isaac and of those children called by the Apostle holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. and will be the case of the children of the Indian Converts Others can rise to the third or fourth generation others can go as high as the Conquest some can claime beyond the Conquest by deeds beyond date so it is with some Christians all may go as high as Ancestours have been in Christianity Eightly If by vertue of that promise Predecessours may without the immediate parent give right to Baptisme then the children of an immediate parent apostatized from the Faith and excommunicated from the Church may be baptized I have spoke already to the children of Apostates and as to the children of excommunicate persons I readily yield his conclusion that I may baptize them against which he thus farther reasons If I may baptize the children of an excommunicate parent then I may baptize the children of one who is no Member of a Church for so is the excommunicate person so consequently the children of a Turk or Indian for they are no members of a Church and the excommunicated person is no other in respect of his communion in Church-priviledges I answer if excommunication be onely out of a particular visible congregation as some say then the reply is easie being thus excommunicate his right in the Church universal visible still remaines and into this it is that we admit Members by Baptisme 1 Cor. 12. 13. otherwise a Christian were a Christian respective onely to one congregation and that congregation falling his Christianity must fall with it and being taken into a new one he must be also admitted-anew by Baptisme But I farther answer A Church-Member may be considered either quoad jus ad rem or quoad jus in re either respective to a fundamental proper right or a present personal actual fruition of his interest An excommunicate man in the former sense is a Church-Member not in the later This excommunication is a sequestration not a confiscation He himself is suspended from present benefit not cut off from all title as several wayes may be made to appear 1. The Text saith Let him be as an Heathen or a Publican in respect of society with him or familiarity saith Master Cawdrey Diatribe pag. 218. not an Heathen and Publicane That Text 2 Thes 3. 14. is ordinarily understood of Excommunication yet there the caution is added Count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother vers 15. A brother is a Church-member an excommunicate person is a brother That which is for cure not only of the body but of the member in particular is not a total dismembring But this sentence is for cure of the particular member For the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Excommunication is not like poyson that is given to an enemy for death but a medicine that is given to a brother for life saith Gomarus in 2 Thes 3. 15. Certainly Gods casting out of his Kingdome Matth. 8. 12. taking away his Kingdome Mat. 21. 3. removal of his Candlestick Rev. 2. 5. the breaking off from the Olive Rom. 11. 17. is a sentence farre above Excommunication To let passe Authours of this minde Zanchy and Perkins quoted by Master Firmin The National Synod of France 1583. The Divines of Geneva Calvine Dr. Ames Danaeus Brochman quoted by Master Cawdrey Diatribe page 216. and examine it by reason Either the excommunicate persons sin divests the childe or else the Churches censure But neither the sin nor the censure Ergo. 1. Not the sin as may appear 1. By an Argument ad hominem Our Dissenting Brethren as we heard allow the Baptisme notwithstanding sin before the sentence of Excommunication It is not then the sin in their judgement that doth divest them 2. By an Argument ad rem No sin but that of nature descends to posterity man transmits not his personal vices neither fault nor guilt no more than his graces And for the sentence that cannot reach the childe I never read that Church-censures were like that plague laid upon Gehazi to cleave to him and to his seed In any legal proceeding the childe is not to be punished for the fathers fault there was a Law against it Deut. 24. 16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers every man shall be put to death for his own sin and Amaziah King of Judah is commended for observation of it and in his acts of justice proceeding according to it 2 Chron. 25. 34. and we read not that any Ecclesiastical censure should transcend it The child of a thief is not committed with him to prison I see no reason that he should be committed with him to Satan I say then there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person I wish our Brethren would stick here not refuse those children whose parents are under no Excommunication As to the third our Authour 1. Premises a question Whether is this bare profession of Faith in Christ though Parents be grossely ignorant scandalous and refuse to subject to Church-discipline sufficient to make a man and continue him a Member of the Church visible And then proceeds to arguments as to his question I wonder how he can imagine that it makes any thing to his question
Jeremies purchase Jer. 32. 10. and the Levites hiring of himselfe to do the office of a Priest Judg. 17. 10. Micah and he mutually agree he is to do the office of a Priest and Micah is to pay his covenant-wages so that he hit right of the nature of a covenant that defined it to be A mutual agreement between parties upon Articles or Propositions on both sides so that each partie is tied and bound to perform his own conditions This holds forth the general nature of a covenant and is common to all covenants publick and private divine or humane differencing it first from a Law or Precept where there is a command out of sovereignty propounded without any obligation or engagement on the Law-giver or Commander Secondly from a single promise where there is a signification of the will of him that makes the promise touching some good to him to whom the promise is made without any restipulation from him And to let passe several Divisions of covenants little pertinent to our purpose which may be seen in Civilians and Politians particularly in Grotius lib. 2. De Jure Belli Pacis cap. 15. and to speak to such which may give some light to the present work Covenans of this nature properly so called are either between equals where either party may indifferently indent with other neither standing engaged to other otherwise then by covenant as in the instances before mentioned The Priest was not engaged to officiate for Micah nor Micah to give money or rayment to the Priest but by vertue of contract one was the others equal in regard of any dependance one upon the other Or else they are between Superiour and Inferiour the Superiour condescending to the Inferiour to deale by way of covenant when yet the whole that is required by him is of debt and might without agreement or stipulation be required and exacted This superiority and inferiority is either mixt and imperfect or else it is absolute and sovereigne Mixt and imperfect superiority and inferiority is between parent and childe master and servant equal in being but Superiour and Inferiour in relation Of this nature was that of Isaac with Esau Gen. 27. 34. Take I pray thee thy weapons thy quiver and thy bowe and go out to the field to take me some venison and make me savoury meat such as I love that my soul may blesse thee before I die Esau was tied as a childe to do what Isaac required though he had hinted or promised no blessing Superiority and Inferiority absolute and sovereigne is only between God and his creature no other is an absolute Superiour and such is the covenant when God enters covenant It is of sovereignty that God makes a Law It is of condescension and goodnesse that he enters covenant in which man may not indent but must accept professedly accepting and in sincerity of heart performing what God in covenant demands yet it is a covenant and properly so called that he enters with his creature especially that which he enters with mankind having all the ingredients and fore-named requisites of a covenant as in the sequel God willing shall be demonstrated God is engaged to retribution and man to fealty and either of both by consent Covenants between any parties whether Superiour and Inferiour or equals among themselves are either simply and nakedly such without any farther solemnity or ceremony or any thing more then is essentially necessary in a Covenant a mutual engagement between each other on such termes and propositions as are mutually agreed Or else they are covenants with addition of ceremonies solemnities wayes of ratification and confirmation as instances might be given in covenants both humane and divine As the committing the words of the Covenant to writing Jer. 32. 10. Calling in witnesses in the same place and Ruth 4. 10 11. giving of the hand making oath Ezek. 17. 18. or any other National custome in use for confirmation as the setting up of a stone Joshuah 24. 26 27. the division of a Calf and passage between the parts of it Jerem. 34. 18. laying upon themselves by way of imprecation such a judgement that then befel that beast in case of falsification so that some making definition of a covenant over and above what is essential make addition of such wayes of ratification so Ravanellus defines a Covenant to be A mutual agreement of two parties in which either ties himself to other upon certain conditions in the use of some outward signes and tokens for attestation and confirmation that the promise may be inviolable The covenant which God pleases to enter with man especially with fallen man under which we are and our fathers in old Testament-administrations were is not a bare naked covenant but in the highest way of solemnity committed to writing John 20. 31. confirmed by witnesses with miracles Heb. 2. 4. by oath Heb. 6. 13. 17. by seals Matth. 28. 19. Matth. 26. 28. compared with Rom. 4. 11. And when he might have dealt with man by way of sovereignty ruling solely by prerogative and command not letting man know any reward for his service or at all to have understood the issue and event yet he is pleased to wave such right and to deal by way of covenant and that in this way here mentioned First That his people might be willing in the day of his power Psalme 110. 3. Obedience extorted contributes not that honour to him whom we obey we confesse a necessity in our selves to yeeld but scarce acknowledge any worth in such a Superiour to command serving no otherwise then Israel did Pharaoh as a bond man serves his master one volunteer that goes out of choice more honours an expedition then ten that are prest by power for service only waiting an opportunity by slealth out of dislike as Davids souldiers out of shame to quit the service I Sam. 19. 3. Secondly to vanquish all temptations and overcome all assaults that may occurre in mans way of obedience Adam in innocency was foiled by a temptation which he had overcome in case he had heeded the terms of the covenant the curse that was threatened and the promise that was contained in it man in his fallen estate undergoes many tryals and is encountered with variety of temptations had he not a word on which he might hope a word of promise in way of covenant from God he could not stand but of necessity must perish Thirdly that love rather then fear might principle man in his obedience as seeing more of goodnesse to induce then of wrath to scare him into it God will have his servants sons The free honour of a childe to his father rather then the compulsory fear of a servant pleases him Fourthly for the aggravation of sinne The more of condescension goodnesse bounty and love appears in Gods way of dealing the more of equity is seen and the more ingratitude and folly appears in mans disobedience Fifthly for mans greater
from him did repeal it but instead of a repeale did put a new sanction upon it Christ indeed as soon as he publickly appeared in the work of redemption was charged that he came to destroy the Law But this he did utterly disavow and men of faith in Christ should believe him professing that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it Yea that there is a greater stability in the Law in every tittle of it in regard of the permanency then is in heaven and earth then is in the whole frabrick of the world And whereas the Scribes and Pharisees were then thought to be the only strict observers of the rule of the Law and the alone men that kept up the honour of it Christ asserts a necessity of a higher degree of obedience then the Scribes and Pharisees ever taught or practised Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees c. which must be understood of righteousnesse inherent in conformity to the Law as appeares in the precedent words where Christ holds discourse about the Law and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow Christ on this occasion openeth the commandments of the Law shewing how farre Scribes and Pharisees went in their righteousnesse how farre we must transcend them if ever we come to the Kingdome of heaven Neither did the Apostles by any Commission from Christ repeal it but they add the same sanction to it Paul foreseeing that this very thing would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish saith he the Law Rom 3. 31. Our doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it And both he and other Apostles frequently in their Epistles urge precepts of the Moral Law as in force and having power and command over men in covenant Paul laying a charge upon children to obey their parents Ephes 6. 1. urges it from the fifth Commandment which he there sets out with a mark of honour as the first Commandment with promise and paraphraseth upon the promise annexed to it against which children might enter their challenge if in Gospel-times the Law had lost its commanding power And requiring obedience from wives to husbands the Law is quoted for it 1 Cor. 14. 34. Having proved the equity of Ministers maintenance by an argument drawn from civil right and common rules of equity in three particulars he adds Say I these things or saith not the Law also the same And so quotes a Text of the Law the Law as delivered by Moses for it is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe that treadeth out the corn 1 Cor. 9. 9. and then cleareth it from an exception that might be taken against it So James 2. 8. If ye fulfil the royal Law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self ye do well The Law is of force in that grand duty so in other precepts there mentioned Do not commit adultery Do not kill verse 11. yea it is of force in the least duties ver 10. He that shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all 1 Thes 47 8. We have the seventh and eighth Commandment quoted as of force with Christians As also Rom. 12. 19. Avenge not your selves but rather give place unto wrath for it is written Vengeance is mine I will repay saith the Lord quoting the Law Deut. 32. 35. Neither is it capable of any repeal being the Law of nature written in the hearts of heathens Rom. 2. 15. more clearly therefore in the heart of Adam These are of those things that are prohibita quia mala The transgression of them was forbidden because evil of their own nature The Creation standing the Law could be no other If no Law had ever been promulged or given of God to man yet murder and adultery had been sinne Christ not changing the Law of Creation but taking to himself the nature of man the same as it was first created when he came to save man must of necessity keep on foot that law that was from the beginning stampt upon him So that we see it is not abolished but ratified neither is it in a capacity of abolition It is confest by a great party of those that in this appeare as adversaries that there is no liberty to sinne in the dayes of the Gospel There be not many that will avouch the contrary if they do they must know that they have the Gospel against them that hath in a readinesse to avenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 6. 10. The Apostle writes to beleevers that they sinne not 1 John 2. 1. And this is the definition of sinne 1 John 3. 4. Sinne is a transgression of the Law As for those that 〈◊〉 beleevers have no sinne cannot sinne it is to little purpose to speak to them or having any thing to deale with them If they believe not John they will not beleeve me telling them that that there is no truth in them 1 John 1. 8. He that pleaseth may see a large confirmation of this truth in Mr. Burg Vindiciae Legis and Master Boltons Treatise of the true bounds of Christian freedome page 77. to 88. Therefore one much forgets himselfe who in a Treatise of the two covenants bespeaks his Reader in these words Consider this seriously that if you be beleevers and married to Christ the Law hath no more power over you then a dead husband hath over his relict and living wife which he presently interprets of a commanding power and denies that the Law hath any commanding power over a beleever Which assertion of his that it may be the more observed he puts into his Index The Law hath no commanding power over a beleever The same Authour yet says that the Law is a discoverer of and convincer of sinne to beleevers It is a curb to the pride and presumption of beleevers as well as of unbeleevers But if a husband cannot by reason of death command his wife how can be convince her of her faults or be a curb or restraint to her Job was in right of command over his wife as long as he had power of reproof to tell her of her folly and to endavour to put a stop to it In his answer of an objection he yeelds that though the Law should be dead to a beleever and a beleever dead to the Law yet it doth not thence follow that they should sinne must sinne or will sinne Upon this supposition I say there is not in them a capacity of sinne or possibility of sinning He further sayes There would be no sinne were it not for a Law for the Law gives if I may so terme it a being to sinne and therefore is called the strength of sinne for if a man should swear covet or kill and there should be no Law prohibiting the same doubtlesse it would not be evil for the Law makes it evil And if the Law
hath lost its commanding power then it can give sinne no more being yea it hath lost its own being power of command being of the essence of it If the Law Thou shalt not kill have no power of command then I sin not if I kill If that Law Sweare not at all have no power of commanding then our RANTERS high oaths are no more sinnes then our eating of swines flesh or 〈◊〉 not observing the Feast of the Passeover Where there is 〈◊〉 there is no transgression and a Law antiquated and repealed that the power of command is gone as in the Laws before mentioned is no Law If he still prâ—sse that similitude of the Apostle that a dead husband hath now power of command But the Law to a beleever is a dead husband First I say if he will be pleased to informe me how a dead husband rips up his wives faults how he curbs and keeps her in which he confesses is the Laws office to a beleever then I shall speedily give an account how this dead husband retaines power of command The Argument is as well of force The dead husband hath no power to discover his wives faults to restraine curb or keep her in But the Law is a dead husband to beleevers Therefore the Law hath no such power It lies upon him to answer this argument to free himself from self-contradiction And I would faine see this answered and the other maintained Secondly for more full satisfaction I say that some learned Expositors make the husband in that similitude not to be the Law but sinne which hath its power from the Law So Diodati in his Notes upon the place Man signifieth sinne which hath power from the Law the woman is our humane nature and of these two are begotten the depraved errours of sinne So also Doctor Reynolds in his Treatise of Divorce page 37. setting out the scope of this similitude thus expresseth it As a wife her husband being dead doth lawfully take another and is not an adulteresse in having his company to bring forth fruit of her body to him so regenerate persons their natural corruption provoked by the Law to sin and flesh being mortified and joyned to Christ as to a second husband Master Burges Vindiciae Degis page 218. saith Sinne which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruption that is the former husband the soul had and lusts they are the children thereof and this the rather is to be received because the Apostle in his reddition doth not say the Law is dead but we are dead But if he will still contend that the Law is the husband in that place which by reason of corruption hath so much power for irritation and condemnation over an unregenerate man I shall onely give him that advice which Doctor Reynolds in the place quoted gives Bellarmine upon occasion of his interpretation of this similitude Let Bellarmine acknowledge that similitudes must 〈◊〉 be set on the rack nor the drift thereof be streched in such sort 〈◊〉 â—f they ought just in length breadth and depth to match and sit that whereunto they are â—â—â—â—mbled And when he confesseth power in the Law notwithstanding this death to performe diverse offices in the souls of beleever◠〈◊〉 cannot affirme that the law is wholly dead nor deny but that it may have this office of command likewise The power which the Law loseth is that which corruption gave it which is irritation and condemnation Corruption never gave command to the Law and the death of corruption through the Spirit can never exempt the soul from obedience or take the power of command from it Let it be granted that the Law is the husband here mentioned the similitude is this That as the Law through our corruption was fruitful in mans nature to the bringing forth of sinne and condemnation So Christ by the Spirit is to be fruitful in our nature to bring forth works of grace to salvation and so the death of the Law is meerly in respect of irritation or inflaming to sinne and binding over to condemnation not in respect of command That this is the full and clear scope of this similitude beyond which it must not be stretched plainly appeares verse 5. For when we were in the flesh the motions of sinnes which were by the Law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death So that here is nothing against the commanding power of the Law God still keeps up his Sovereignty and by this Law he rules the regenerate I wish our Authour would sadly reflect upon that reason of his The Law is not authorized by Christ to reigne and rule in the consciences of his people For his Fathers peace his own righteousnesse and his Spirits joy There is none that speaks of the reigne of the Law in the consciences of the people of God but God in Christ reigns and by his Moral Law rules for all these reasons So farre are these from excluding his rule by his Law in his peoples hearts If this rule of the Law be destructive to Christs righteousnesse then Christs coming for righteousnesse must needs be to destroy the Law which Christ disclaimes And the rule of the peace of God in our hearts is so farre from excluding his rule by his Law that without it it can never be attained Great peace have they that love thy Law and nothing shall offend them Psalme 119. 165. This is the confidence that we have in God that whatsoever we ask according to his will we shall receive because we keep his commandments 1 John 3. 22. A Commandment hath a commandâ—â—â— power and only they that keep them have this peace ruling in their hearts The Spirits joy and the power of the Law to command are so farre from opposing one the other that the Spirit gives testimony of Gods abode in no other but such as confesse and yeeld to this power He that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him and he in him and hereby we know that be abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us 1 John 3. 24. And of like nature is that which he further hath Though the Law the former husband be dead to a beleever yet a beleever is no widow much lesse an harlot for he is married to Christ and is under the Law of Christ which is love If the moral Law respective to the power of command be dead then love is dead with it Jesus Christ reduces the ten Commandments into two Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self If then the Law be dead this love from the heart is dead and so a beleever is either a widow or an harlot Master Burges Vindiciae Legis page 12. shews at large that to do a thing out of obedience to the Law and yet by love and delight do not oppose one another which if the Reader consult with his enlargement of it he
duty which is either expresly or Synecdochically either directly or else interpretatively virtually and reductively I very well know that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitely and expresly delivered but that 1. The use and best improvement of reason is required to know what pro hic nunc is called for at our hands for duty The Law layes down rules in affirmative precepts in an indefinite way which we must bring home by particular application discerning by general Scripture Rules with the help of reason which sometimes is not so easie to be done when it speaks to us in a way of concernment as to present practical observation 2. That hints of providence are to be observed to know what in present is duty as to the affirmative part of the commandment of God If that man that fell among theeves between Jerusalem and Jericho had sate by the way on the green grasse without any appearance of harme or present need of help the Samaritane that passed that way had not offended in case he had taken no more notice then the Priest and Levite did But discerning him that case as he then was the sixth commandment called for that which he then did as a present office of love to his neighbour according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour Mark 3. 4. When the Pharisees watched him whether he would heale the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day He demands of them Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or to do evil To save life or to destroy It was not their minde that Christ should kill the man onely they would not have had him then to have cur'd him But not to cure when it is in our power according to Christs interpretation is to kill If diligent observation be not made the commandment may be soone transgress'd 3. Skill in Sciences and professions is to be improved by men of skill that the commandment may be kept The Samaritane poured wine and oyle into the travellers wounds knowing that to be of use to supple and refresh them Had he known any other thing more sovereigne which might have been had at hand he was to have used it As skill in medicines is to be used for preservation of mens lives so also skill in the Laws by those that are vers'd in them for the help of their neighbour in exigents concerning his estate and livelihood 4. We must listen to Gods mouth to learne when he shall be pleased at any time further to manifest his minde for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts There was a command concerning the place of publick and solemn worship Deut. 12. 5. Vnto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his Name there even to his habitation shall ye seek and thither shalt thou come Now thou must depend on the mouth of God to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation When God commands that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript This is a perfect Rule implicite and virtual tying us to heed the Lord at any time more particularly discovering his will and clearing this duty to us Was not the Law of worship perfect to Abraham unlesse it explicitely told him that he must sacrifice his Sonne And if any take themselves to be so acute as to set up a new Rule as some are pleased to stile it then they antiquate and abolish the old Rule and singularly gratifie the Antinomian party Two Rules will no more stand together then two covenants calling it a new Rule men make the first old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Heb. 8. 17. It is added moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ our Lawgiver and say the Law shall go out of Zion c. Isa 2. 3. And was not the old Law his Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law and calls it the Law of Christ Gal. 6. 2. His Laws were delivered in the wildernesse whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked This is plain for they sinn'd against the Law-giver and from his hands they suffered And who they tempted in the wildernesse see from the Apostles hand 1 Cor. 10. 9. And as to the Scripture quoted the words are exegetically set down in those that follow them The Law shall go out of Zion and the Word of the Lord out of Jerusalem Which is no more but that the Name of the Lord which was then known in Judah shall be great from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof It is further demanded And is he not the anointed King of the Church and therfore hath legislative power For answer I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was before Christ came in the flesh The Kingdom was one and the same and the King one and the same then and now as I take it Many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven The Gentiles coming in at the Gospel-call are under the same King and in the same Kingdom And if all this were granted which is here pleaded for it is no more then a change in some positive circumstantial Rites and what is this to the question handled by our Authour That our righteousnesse which is imperfect according to the old Rule is perfect according to the new when old and new in that which is naturally Moral is one and the same When the Law required heart-service and love with the whole heart upon spiritual ends and motives upon which account all fell short in their obedience and performance shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this that so the Rule being lower our obedience now may answer Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Law-givers and agents for God in holding out distinct precepts give the pre-eminence to Christ and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection This Authour on the contrary seems to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses 2. For Justification of this accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection it is added the Moral taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of stone is not a sufficient rule for us now for beleeving in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a general command of beleeving all that God revealeth is not the only rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of his own mouth where he says Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the commandment in unbelief then the Commandment
confesse is more disputable then either of the former before spoken to In those we had to deale with Antinomians on the one hand Papists Arminians Socinians on the other hand with some few others that are pleased in those points alone to strike in with Arminians and Socinians and in other things to oppose them But in this Papists agree not among themselves but one is against another neither is there that agreement amongst Protestant Writers that might be desired which must not be concealed some are for the affirmative and some for the negative and some seem to stand in a neutral indifferency Bellarmine among the Papists is for the affirmative lib. 4. de justificatione cap. 6. and takes up Soto for the contrary tenent who affirmes as he quotes him that Christians are not only delivered from the Ceremonial Law and the guilt and terror of the moral Law but from the whole Law as written in the books of Moses with this caution as he reports him that we are to keep the Law of Moses as it is natural and as it is in the Gospel and in the Epistles of the Apostles but not as it was written by Moses for Moses saith he could not binde us but it is Christ that bindes us for we are Christians and not Jews Soto hath Suarez and Medina as Master Burges observes with him and among the Protestants Zanchius de redemptione lib. 1. cap. 12. and Musculus in his common places go the same way affirming that the Moral Lawes which go under the name of the decalogue as they were delivered by Moses to the Israelites do not concerne Christians but as they are agreeable to the Law of nature and confirmed by Christ Paraeus as is observed by Rivet in his Explication of the Decalogue page 11. giving in his judgement of the differing opinions of Bellarmine and Soto affirms that the opinion of Bellarmine is most safe to be followed Rivet himself in the place quoted takes it to be a strife of words and the difference to be inconsiderable and in case the authority be granted there seemes indeed lesse danger though the Minister be waved The Antinomian as others have observed is by both parties opposed Some may think that the Law thus gaines in its authority in as much as Christ is of much more excellency then Moses when the Master of the Vineyard saw his servant neglected he said They will reverence my Sonne Mat. 21. 37. But if the servant be once despised and set so light by as we read from some hands Away with stammering Moses it may be feared that the Sonne will not long remaine in honour when servants fared so ill we finde that the Sonne had little better entertainment And in my thoughts there is scarce a readier way then this to strip us of the whole of the Law of God Keeping up to their own principles they can look on no more of the Law as binding Christians then that which is held out to us in New Testament-Scriptures If this be granted we must have a New Testament Text for every Moral duty yet to gratifie adversaries in this particular we may safely yeeld that the Law concernes not Christians as it was delivered by Moses only to the Israelites and so Zanchy's Position keeping strictly to the termes may happily be defended The Moral Laws as delivered by Moses to the Israelites do not appertain to Christians so neither doth Lukes Gospel or the history of the Acts as from him to Theophilus nor yet any of Pauls Epistles as from him to any particular Church or to Timothy Titus or Philemon But looking on Moses as employed of God with his Church with which he was in the Wildernesse Acts 7. 38. and upon his writings as a depositum left with the Church they are of equal concernment to us as they were to the Jews if we be as the Church of the Jewes was a Church of God This to me is plaine not only by those Texts of Moses quoted in New Testament-Scriptures as we heard before but quoted also as from Moses The Apostle pleading for Ministers maintenance saith For it is written in the Law of Moses 1 Cor. 9. 9. How were this argument of force if Moses his writings were not of use That of Peter is convincing 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. But as he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of conversation because it is written be ye holy for I am holy This was written by Moses Lev. 11. 44. Lev. 19. 2. Lev. 20. 7. and why should we be engaged to holinesse eo nomine because Moses writ it and gave it in charge in case Moses his writings do not binde Christians This also to me is plaine in reason Christ was King then as now his Church is the same now as then we and they make up one Kingdome Matth. 8. 11. The Lawes of Christ therefore unlesse they appear to be repealed are now in force as in former times There is not a temporal Obligation saith Master Burges Vindiciae Legis page 162. laid upon a perpetual duty The duties are confessed to be perpetual why should Moses then deliver them to be only of temporal permanency Neither is there any thing brought by Soto or any other hand to evince the contrary In the close of the words already quoted he sayes Mose-could not binde us but Christ for we are not Jews but Christians To this we say He could not binde us authoritatively but ministerially and because Christ bindes therefore Moses bindes seeing Moses was a servant in that house where Christ was a Sonne Christ was King of his Church in Moses his dayes Israel tempted Christ in disobeying Moses 1 Cor. 10. 9. He commanded for Christ when he gave command to the Israelites and these commands are of concernment unto Christians who are their fellow subjects The Arguments produced by Soto are satisfyingly answered by Bellarmine Soto saith that the Preface of the law leads to the Israelites onely I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage But it was the Jews and not Christians that were in Egypt This is false as one of these Jesuites truly answers the other we were in Egypt as well as the Nation of the Jews They were our fathers and we their children 1 Cor. 10. 1. It was once indeed otherwise with us being branches of the wilde Olive But the natural branches being cut off we are grafted into their stead that mercy of deliverance from Egypt being a Church-mercy is our mercy He further objects that of Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were until John and is answered that that is understood of the Law prophecying by figures and not instructing in manners which is further explained Matth. 11. 13. For all the Prophets and the Law prophecyed until John that is all the prophesies of the Messiah to come whether delivered in words by the Prophets or by signes
the argument seems of force We vindicate Gods justice in commanding works though to us now impossible seeing once we had power to reach the highest of his precepts and his command is no rule of our empaired strength but of our duty But if men never had that power and the Law never required it it is injustice according to all parties to exact it Answ Let those that fall to the Arminians in this tenent that they may make the Law an imperfect rule and an insufficient direction see how they can avoid it how they can vindicate Gods justice thus impeached But the Orthodox party have still maintained that Adam had in his integrity that faith that doth justifie though then it performed not that office of justification as he had that faculty whereby we see dead bodies though then there was no possibility of such sight there being no dead bodies to be seen And that faith in Christ is commanded in the first precept of the Law is manifest There we are commanded to have God for our God no Interpreter will deny that the affirmative is contained in that negative Thou shalt have none other gods but me Now God is the God of beleevers Heb. 11. 16. No man can have any communion with God but by faith in Christ And so consequently this faith is there required what Expositor of the Law doth not put trust and affiance in God within the affirmative part of the first commandment as well as fear love and obedience And without Christ there can be no affiance or trust If we conceive the moral Law to reach no farther then the duties expressely there named or the evils forbidden we shall make it very scant and narrow we shall see small reason of that of the Psalmist Thy Commandment is exceeding broad Psalme 119. 96. But in case we take in all that by necessary consequence may be inferred according to the approved rules of interpretation then scarce any duty is more clearly laid down then this of faith in Christ And whereas one faith A man cannot preach Faith in Christ out of the Moral Law I say a man out of the Moral Law may evince the necessity of Faith in Christ unto every one that lives in Gospel-light to whom Christ is tendred The Law requires the duty and the Gospel discovers the object no man out of the Law could have evinced Abraham that he must offer his sonne nor that he must have left his countrey but when Gods minde was made known to him the Moral Law did binde him to obedience and he had sinned against the Moral Law in case he had refused There is no command given of God to any man at any time of an nature whatsoever but the Moral Law ties him to the observation of it not immediately explicitely but upon supposition of such a command intervening Therefore ye shall observe all my Statutes and all my judgements and do them I am the Lord Levit. 19. 37. Faith in Christ being commanded of God I John 3. 23. the Moral Law obliges to obedience of it See Molin Anatom Arminianis cap. 11. Respons Wallaei ad Censuram Johannis Arnol. Corvini cap. 11. Ball on the covenant page 105. Burges Vindiciae legis page 117. A farther difficulty here offers it selfe Obj. and an obstruction laid against that which in this Treatise is after intended If the covenant or second covenant as opposite to that of works be in Christ and grounded on the work of reconciliation then it is commensurate with it and of no greater latitude and only the elect and chosen in Christ the called according to Gods purpose being reconciled only these are in covenant when the Scripture as shall be God willing made good confines not this covenant within the limits of the invisible Church known only to God But it is as large as the Church visible To this I answer Answ that the Prophetical office of Christ as Shepherd and Bishop of our souls and so much of his Kingly office as consists in a legislative power hath its foundation as well as the covenant in this work of reconciliation Had not this been undertaken by Christ for mankinde man had never enjoyed that light man had never had an Oracle or an Ordinance as the fruit of his Prophetick office yet these Ordinances are not commensurate with reconciliation nor of equal latitude with election So neither is the covenant but either of both in order towards it As Ordinances therefore are Christs gift from heaven as the fruit of his death and resurrection when yet all that partake of these Ordinances do not yet die or rise with Christ So is the covenant when yet all in covenant are not stedfast in it nor obtaine the graces of it Therefore I know not how to admit that which a Divine singularly eminent hath laid down That all the effects of Christs death are spiritual distinguishing and saving Seeing gifts of Christ from his Fathers right hand are fruits of his death yet not spiritual distinguishing and saving That they are in some sort spiritual I dare grant that is in ordine ad spiritualia if I may so speak they have a tendency to a spiritual work That they are distinguishing from the world as it is taken in opposition to the Church visible I yeeld for I do not enlarge the fruit of Christs death to all man-kinde assenting to Master Owen and Master Stalham in the grounds that they lay of Gods respite of the execution of the whole penalty on man with the continuance of outward favours not to be upon the account of Christ but for other reasons yet I know not how to affirme that Ordinances which yet are fruits of his death are all saving spiritual and distinguishing seeing they neither conferre salvation nor saving grace on all that partake of them So that Christ is a Mediatour of this covenant and yet those enter into it that have not reconciliation by Christ Jesus The Ephesians that were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ Ephes 2. 13. that is brought into a visible Church-state in the fruition of Ordinances made free of that city whose name is The Lord is here Ezek. 48. 35. CHAP. XVIII Farther differences between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace A Farther difference of importance between these covenants is in the conditions annext unto either of them and here the difference is brought to the height This alone so diversifies them that they are not barely in circumstance and way of administration but in substance two distinct covenants The least difference in conditions diversifies bargains and agreements on what part soever the difference is Conditions of the covenant between God and man are of two sorts either such in which God engages himselfe or in which man is engaged either the stipulation on Gods part or else the restipulation on the part of man The former unto which God is engaged are either rewards in case of
Exod. 34. 7. when he sets out his name in several particulars this is one by no means clearing the guilty Some indeed have said conceiting with themselves thereby to promote free grace that God justifies sinners as sinners which as it must needs if true bring in the salvation of all à quatenus ad omne valet argumentum then a man need no more but sinne to conclude his salvation and the more sinne the stronger evidence so it is utterly destructive to the Gospel and overthrows the whole work of Christs merit as the Apostle saith If righteousnesse be by the Law then Christ is dead in vaine Galatians 2. 21. So we may safely say If a man be justified as a sinner without a righteousnesse So that the truth is God justifies as righteous what he esteems as an abomination in man that he doth not himself but this in man is an abomination to him He that justifieth the wicked and condemneth the just even they both are an abomination to the Lord Proverbs 17. 15. Secondly Man hath no righteousnesse of his owne to bring in plea for his justification in which he can appeare before God in judgment This will be plaine if we consider the wayes of acquital where proceedings are just and legal This must be either as innocent when a man can plead not guilty to that which is given in charge So did David when Cush the Benjamite did traduce him Psalm 7. 3. If I have done this if there be iniquity in my hands And so did Paul to the charge of Tertullus Acts 24. 13. Upon this account Pilate was willing to have acquitted Christ I finde no fault in this man Luke 23. 4. Or else by way of satisfaction or discharge of the penalty which the Law imposeth so in all penal Lawes when the penalty is borne the delinquent is discharged Man cannot be acquitted as innocent his guilt is too palpable There is no men that sinneth nâ—t saith Solomon 1 Kings 8. 4 6. The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne Gal. 3. 22. The Law speaks that language that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. Man is under that guilt that he is wholly silenced which renders the way of salvation by works impossible Neither can he be acquitted by way of satisfaction where the way of pure justice is held the debtor under charge can never come out till he hath paid the uttermost farthing Mat. 5. 26. Which here amounts to such an heighth that man may be ever paying but never able to satisfie Our guilt is according to the majesty of him whose Law is transgressed and wrath incurred This is seen in Devils and damned souls who bear in their own persons the reward due to their sinnes That man that must suffer it in his own person may well say with Cain My punishment is greater then I can bear Gen. 4. 13. Thirdly Man in this sad and perplexed estate hath yet a righteousnesse of grace tendered him a righteousnesse without the Law but witnessed by the Law and the Prophets Rom. 3. 21. And this is by way of discharge of his guilt by anothers suffering Our name was in the Obligation in case of sinne to suffer death Christ was pleased by consent and covenant with the Father to put in his and as he was thus obliged so he suffered the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 1 Pet. 3. 18. We brake the Law and he bore the penalty whether idem or tantundem the same in specie or the same in value is scarce worth dispute So that it be yeelded that justice was answered and the Father satisfied and that we come out not on our own but our sureties account And this as I yet conceive is by Christs passive obedience His suffering in the flesh is our freedom his death is our ransome There needs no more than innocency not to die and when guilt is taken away we stand as innocent no crime then can be charged upon us But to reign in life as the Apostle speaks to inherit a crown there is farther expected which we not reaching Christs active obedience imputed to us not adding to ours but being in it self compleat is accounted ours and we are discharged And whereas some say Object that being freed from death upon that very account we reigne in life and therefore in case his sufferings deliver us from death they necessarily confer upon us life there is not nor can there be conceived any medium between them I answer Answ It is true of our natural life and death A man not dead is alive But taking death in Scripture-sense for the wages of sin which comprizes as we have heard all misery and life for an immarcessible crown of glory there may be a medium conceived between them and is not onely conceived but assigned by Papists in their Limbus infantum Neither will it serve to say that Christs active obedience served onely for a qualification to fit him for the work of suffering none but innocent man free from sin could be a sacrifice for sinne seeing Christ had been innocent though he had never come under the Law to have yeelded that obedience His person had not been as ours under the Law unlesse of his own accord he had been made under the Law Gal. 4. 4. Somewhat might be said for the subjection of the humane nature in Christ the manhood of Christ which was a creature but the person of Christ God-man seemes to be above subjection Much may be said for the subjection of the Sonne of David so considered he may say with David I am thy servant and the sonne of thy handmaid but not so of the Lord of David had he not for our sakes made himself a servant We know the mortality of the humane nature yet Christ had never died unlesse he had made himself obedient unto death neither needed he to have served unlesse he had humbled himself Phil. 2. to take upon him the forme of a servant See the confession of Faith agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines chap. 8. sect 5. and Dr. Featlies speeches upon it Fourthly This righteousnesse of Christ whether passive or active or both passive and active is made ours by faith This is our way of interest and appropriation of it to our selves Faith and no other grace this grace and no other Gospel-work gives us title and therefore as it is called the righteousnesse of God so also the righteousnesse of faith These two are promiscuously used and taken for one another Rom. 10. 3 4. Phil 3. 8. Called the righteousnesse of God being the free gift of God wrought by Christ who is God denied to be our own righteousnesse being neither wrought by us or inherent in us called the righteousnesse of faith not of works not of love not of patience or meekness It is alone faith and none of these graces that puts out it selfe to receive it
he 1 There is a passive receiving of Christ You will say saith my Authour what is passive receiving of Christ I answer saith he A passive receiving of Christ is just such a receiving of him as when a froward Patient takes a purge or some bitter physick he shuts his teeth against it but the Physician forceth his mouth open and poures it downe his throat and so it works against his will by the ever-ruling power of one over him that knows it is good for him Thus I say there is a passive recipiency or receiving of Christ which is the first receiving of him when Christ comes by the gift of the Father to a person whilest he is in the stubornesse of his own heart 2 There is an active receiving of him c. This distinction carries a full contradiction in it self There cannot be in the same subject a meere passive and active recipie cy of the same thing as appeares in the similitude brought to illustrate it This froward Patient that hath a medicine forced into him in which he is meerly passive cannot again afterward receive that medicine If Christ be thâ—s forced and enters against our will then we cannot actively at any time after receive him And could it be reconciled unto it self yet it stands in full opposition to Scripture Christ stands at the door and knocks Reâ— 3. 20. He waites till his locks are wet with the dew of the night as Cant. 5. 2. But he makes no forcible entry we read of Gods power in changing the will that it freely accepts but not forcing gifts of grace upon any against their wills Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Psal 110. 3. He works a will Philip. 2. 13. Christ dwells in none that rise in hostility against him and the positioâ— which the distinction is brought to assert That unbelief is no bar hindring one from having Christ is no better If unbeliefe be no barre to our receiving of Christ then it is no barre to salvation where the Saviour enters he brings salvation He that hath the Son hath life 1 John 5. 12. But we finde it evidently a barre to salvation according to Scripture Joh. 3. 36. He that beleeveth not the Sonne shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him He that beleeveth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16. Yea according to the Author himself There is no person under heaven shall be saved saith he till he have beleeved which is a truth according to Scripture They could not enter into the rest of Canaan that did lie in their unbelief Neither can they enter into the rest of heaven Heb. 4. 1. Then Christ dwells not in our hearts by Faith Ephes 3. 17. But also in a state of unbelief Then God is not a justifier of those that beleeve in Jesus as Rom. 3. 26. but equally justifies men without Faith in Jesus Then Christ is not set out a propitiation through Faith in his blood but without any Faith in it Then they that beleeve are not only justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses but they that beleeve not And God gave his Sonne that he that beleeves not on him should have everlasting life This doctrine layes all the honour of Faith in the dust Then Habakkuk might have spared this speech that the just shall live by Faith Habbakuk 2. 4. and Paul might have found another way of life in the flesh than by Faith in the Son of God Secondly Object It is said that the justification of a sinner was with God from eternity It was in his purpose before all time to discharge his Elect and to lay nothing to their charge So then this is as election it selfe unconditional To which I answer Answ That this ovethrows the redemption wrought by Christ and the price paid by his sufferings as well as the necessity of Faith What need Christ to be at all that pains to undergo all those sorrows as to be a man of sorrows to do that which from all eternity was done Then as Paul sayes in another case Christ is dead in vain This some have seene yet rather than leave their opinion have chosen to swallow it down and the absurdity with it and do maintaine that Christ did not purchase procure or work any love from God for man but only published and declared that he was from eternity beloved A fit conclusion drawn from such premisses Then Christ was no Authour of eternal salvation as Heb. 5 9. but only the publisher He was a messenger from God in the dayes of his flesh but no Saviour of man He did not redeeme us with a price but only made known that we were so farre in the love of God from eternity that no redemption needs Secondly I say Gods purpose of a thing doth no put it in being He takes his own way to bring about in time that which he purposed before all time All that is done even every work under the Sunne was alike from eternity in the purpose of God Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world Acts 15. 18. So the house that was built this day was built from eternity The childe that was born this day was borne from eternity We may as well say that the Elect were glorified from eternity so that they need to look after no other glorification as to say they are justified from eternity All the works of God were in his purpose from ever who sees all things at once and not as we can comprehend them in their respective succession But we enquire after things as they are in themselves and not as they are in Gods purpose Thirdly Object Some say justification can be no other than an act of God from eternity being an immanent act and not a transient Transient acts are in time done in the juncture of time when God pleases to do them but immanent acts of God are from eternity Answ To which I first answer that it is not without danger for us to bring the actions of God under our examination and then to fix School-notions upon them according to which they must be bounded When as Master Burges well observes we are here in meere darknesse and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work Treatise of Justification page 166. How much more safe were it for us to learne à posteriore from the mouth of God in Scriptures what his actions are and the order how he works than à priâ—re to conclude that they are thus and thus and therefore thus of necessity he must work Yet if we may be so bold as to look into this act of his and take it into consideration according to this notion we may farre rather conclude that justification is an action transient not immanent An immanent action as the Schooles tell us is terminated within the subject and works no real nor evident
the first and great Commandment in the Law in this life can be fulfilled and charging it with blasphemy Luther having Austins authority in several places as Jansenius confesses for to second him affirming with him that this Commandment in this life cannot be perfected or fulfilled but it is to be fulfilled in the life to come giving his reason As long as there is any thing of carnal concupiscence to be restrained God is not with the whole heart loved The good Bishop knows how by distinction to salve Austin and maintaine his doctrine to be good divinity and denying Luther that favour to leave him under the brand of blasphemy so that the result of all with him is this God is then loved with the whole heart when any one out of inward and sincere affection to God is principally exercised in those things which are of God studying above all things to please him and carefully to observe not one but all his Commandments and that not slothfully and against heart but diligently and cheerfully grieving from the heart if any thing by others or himself through infirmity of the flesh be admitted contrary to the will of God So that some might think all controversie in this point may cease and that the difference between us were no more than a strife of words seeing we do not only confesse that this ought to be done but also urge a necessity of doing of it and they say the Law is fulfilled when it is done But here 1. Much wrong is done to the Law as though it were a rule of our strength not of our duty that it answered and might be applied to each mans impaired strength and weakened abilities or that the Gospel-grace of godly sorrow for sin against the Law were the keeping of the Law making repentance a satisfactory discharge for disobedience When these men cannot bring up mans nature to the streight line of the Law they bring down the Law to the crooked nature of man 2. It is injurious to man puffing him up with conceit of answering the Law setting him up as high as he should be laid low ready to say with the young man in the Gospel All these have I kept from my youth when holding out the Law in its just latitude as it was happily brought home to the Apostles conscience sin would revive and he would see himselfe in a lost condition A second opinion is that the covenant of grace requires perfection in the exactest way without help of these mens distinctions in an equal degree with the covenant of works but with this difference In the covenant of works there is no indulgence or dispensation in case of failing but the penalty takes hold the curse follows upon it But the covenant of grace though it call for perfection such is the exactnesse of it yet it accepts of sincerity such is the qualification of it through grace or the mercy in it If I should take up any opinion in the world for the Authours sake or those that have appeared as Patrons of it then I should embrace this The reverence deservedly due to him that I suppose first manisted himself in it hath caused it to finde great entertainment but upon more than twenty yeares thoughts about it I finde it labouring under manifold inconveniences 1. It establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants and but now refuted as to the obedience and the degree called for in covenant And if I should be indulgent to my affections to cause my judgement to stoop Dislike of the one would make me as averse from it as an opinion of the other would make me prone to receive it Judgement therefore must lead and affections be waved 2. If this opinion stand then God accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deale falsely in it whereas Scripture charges it only upon the wicked upon those of whom God complaines as rebellious Deut. 29. 25. Josh 7. 15. Jeremy 11. 10. Jeremy 22. 8 9. Yea it may be charged on the best the most holy in the world lying under the guilt of it according to this tenent 3. Then it will follow that as none can say that they have so answered the commands of the Law that they have never failed they have not if put to answer in the greatest rigour once transgressed so neither can they with the Church make appeale to God That they have not dealt falsely in the Covenant nor wickedly departed from their God Psal 44. 17. Every sinne according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing falsely in it 4. Then that great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse unto childrens children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commandments to do them Psalme 103. 17 18. only appertaines to those that so keep the Law that they sinne not at all against it 5. Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh binde our selves never more to admit the least infirmity and so live and die in the breach of it 6. Then the distinction between those that entered covenant and broke it as Jerem. 31 32 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts and put into their inward parts to observe it falls all standing equally guilty of the breach of it no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant Each of these five last arguments are replyed to by a distinction of the precept and conditions of the Covenant Men that are sincere break the precept as is said but not the conditions But I know no precepts in covenants which are not conditions Faith and Repentance are Precepts and I think the alone Precepts and I know not neither do I heare of any other Conditions 7. Then it follows that Sincerity is never called for as a duty or required as a grace but only dispensed with as a failing indulged as a want It is not so much a Christians honour or character as his blemish or failing rather his defect than praise But we finde the contrary in Noah Job Asa Hezekiah Zachary and Elizabeth Nathaniel an Israelite indeed that entered covenant and kept covenant Sincerity is a degree towards perfection in obedience and if the command looks no lower than perfection in degree the imperfect degree is not commanded though it be indulged And therefore I conclude that as in the Law there was pure justice as well in the command given as the penalty threatened without any condescension or indulgence So in the covenant there is mercy and condescension as well in the condition required as in the acceptance through grace The Covenant requires no more than it accepts The alone Argument Object so farre as ever I could learn that hath brought some of reverend esteeme heretofore into this opinion is That if
21 22 23. yea the very Chapter whence this prophecie is taken ver 6. and the Apostles in the New Testament call upon men for the mutual help of each other for edification this Prophecie does not stand alone for the destruction of it CHAP. XXVII Schooles and Nurseries of Learning in order to a gifted Ministery necessary AS a Ministery is to be established to bring men into Covenant and to bring them up to the termes of the covenant so all that necessarily conduces to it is necessarily to be provided First Nurseries Seminaries Seed-plots for gifts and abilities fitting for it and sutable to it Qui vult finem vult media is a certain rule the end ever supposes the way to it He that will be a workman must have tools He that will fight a battel must have armes He that will make a Purchase must have moneys As other things so the Ministery must have its due preparations Christ having commissioned the twelve for the work of discipling Nations they must not set upon it till they were enpoured for it We have not inspiration that is to be supplied by education the way that Paul gave in charge to Timothy Give attendance to reading 1 Tim. 4. 13. Meditate wholly on these things that thy profitting may appear to all verse 15. As he had not health by miracle but in the use of means 1 Tim. 5. 23. so neither had he gifts for the Ministery but by study A way for the advancement of study is therefore necessary and though neither Law nor Gospel do in the letter expressely appoint them no more than they did Synagogues for the Jewes and the like places of Assembly for Christians yet by way of necessary consequence both Law and Gospel call for them seeing they expressely call for that which without these cannot be effected A School to teach letters with the Art of spelling that we may be able to read is not any where appointed The Holy Ghost speaking to men of the light of Reason and requiring knowledge of the Law by searching the Scriptures and meditation in it knew this was needlesse As petty Schooles for private Christians so are Schooles of a higher nature for the Ministerial Function Therefore as all Sects whatsoever had their Schooles to advance their way Stephen met with some of them at Jerusalem Paul at Athens so we finde the like for the propagation of the knowledge of the Law of God The Sonnes of the Prophets say to Elisha 2 King 6. 1. Behold the place where we dwell is too strait for us Sonnes of Prophets were no other than Pupils or Scholars of the Prophets and we see that they made their abode together and their number encreased To this Solomon alludes in the Proverbs in the Person of Wisdom My sonne receive my instruction and our Saviour also Wisdom is justified of all her children Mat. 11. 19. Such a place there was at Naioth in Ramah whither David fled and Saul followed him 1 Sam. 19. 20. There was Samuel and a company of Prophets Naicthum venerunt c. They came to Naioth which was the dwelling of the Prophets who exercised themselves in the Law of God that the doctrine of salvation might be propagaed throughout the whole region of Israel So Calvin on the place Naioth habitatio quaedam c. Naioth was the dwelling of the Prophets in Ramah where the beleevers gave themselves up to the study of Gods Law and were called the sonnes of the Prophets Pellican in locum pag. 200 And from these worâ—s Willer on the place out of Peter Martyr concludes that The noble foundation of Vniversities and Schools of Learning is grounded upon the example of the Prophets To this end there was a Colledge in Jerusalem where Huldah the Prophetesse did live 2 Chron. 34. 22. And Jeremy who lived in the same time speaks of the Prophets of Jerusalem as of the Prophets of Samaria Jerem. 23. 13 14. In either places they had as appeares Schooles of the Prophets After the destruction of Jerusalem Schooles for learning were still held up by the Jewes They had their University in Tiberias as Weemes observes Christian Synagogue page 148. In Babylon saith he there were three famous Vniversities Neharda Sora and Pambeditha He farther saith Colledges were appointed to receive strangers and were called Labrothenu which is corruptly read Libertines Acts 6. 9. By the same providence on like warranty in the dayes of the Gospel they have been set up at Alexandria Antioch where many famous men taught publickly saith Willeâ— further out of Martyr as Pentianus Origen Clemens These through Gods goodnesse are continued wheresoever the Gospel is preached so that the use of Schools the necessitie of Universities is evident as well in Scripture as the light of Reason Objections answered Object But the Vniversities of Europe are a cause of vniversâ—l sines and plagues Object we waâ—t the Vniversities the S 〈◊〉 and Seed plots of all Piety But have not those fountaines ever sent what streames the times liked and ever changed their 〈…〉 according to the Princes eye and palate Bloody tenent page 173. Answ Answ So from the Prophets of Jerusalem as Jeremy complaines profanenesse went into all the land Their Universities it seemes were as foul as ours which the Prophet bewailed and had a zeal to purge but not to destroy and wholly ruinate The streams from thence blessed be God have not run in one channel We have from thence sweet waters as well as bitter streams that have made glad the Cities of God Object Object I honour Schooles for Tongues and Arts but the institution of Europes Vniversities devoting Persons for Schollars in a Monastical way forbidding marriage and labour too I hold saith one as farre from the minde of Jesus Christ as it is from the propagating of his name and worship Bloody Tenent page 173. Answ I am of your minde They very well agree to both as may sufficiently appeare in that which hath been said They that propagate his Name and worship must know it and this is the way to attaine to knowledge For the forbidding of labour I know no such expresse statute but the very being of Schools of this kinde is inconsistent with it A School for Tongues and Arts cannot be a shop for Trades Can we think those Sons of the Prophets that studied under Elisha or those Prophets under Samuel had their employments of manufactures or tillage If they had been men of labour they would sure have had an Axe among them and not have been put to borrow To be a Prophet and an Husbandman as Zach. 13. 5. taught from youth to keep cattel cannot stand together as hath been shewn The Levites had no land for tillage nor yet do we read that they drove any trades Their work we finde prescribed them Deut. 33. 10. They shall teach Jacob thy judgements and Israel thy Laws they shall put incense before thee and whole burnt-offering before the Altar
do any where is every where valid within the limit of that power under which they act It is of force through the whole Nation Some functions are topical or local as Justices of Peace a chief officer in a Corporation Sheriff or Constable who are without power out of their own limits A Minister or Presbyter is a Catholick or Universal Officer he hath jus in re in the whole Church visible for all Ministerial actions whether of Word or Sacraments he hath jus ad rem in the place assigned and appointed him where alone he is regularly to officiate and so hath the title of an Aggel or Elder of such a particular Church to which he is called Rev. 2. 1 7 c. Acts 20. 17. He hath a first right every where a second right only where he is orderly placed This is to be done by examination or tryal if no word of Scripture did mention it yet the thing it self evinces the necessity of it Scripture layes down the requisites or qualifications in Ministers First for years not a novice 1 Tim. 3. 6. Some are old young which may answer some want of years more fit at twenty foure then others at thirty Secondly for conversation Blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker not given to filthy lucre but a lover of hospitality a lover of good men sober just holy temperate Titus 1. 7 8. Thirdly for parts and gifts 2 Tim. 2. 15. A workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth Tit. 1. 9. Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince gain-sayers Fourthly for graces of the Spirit they should be as Barnabas full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith Acts 11. 24. From which gifts of nature must not be excluded as strength of body in its measure that the body may in some sort keep pace with the soule The gift of utterance that not only his head but his lips may preserve knowledge that he may be able to speak to edification exhortation and doctrine of these such that act in Ordination should have knoweldge of each of them so far as they may come to cognizance of some of these by letters of commendation from faithful persons 2 Cor. 3. 1. of others by proof and examination 1 Tim. 3. 10. The Apostle having laid down the qualifications of Bishops and proceeding to that of Deacons hath these words Let these also be proved and then let them use the office of a Deacon both Bishops and Deacon must undergo examination Timothy must lay hands suddenly on none 1 Tim. 1. 22. He must then lay on his hands no otherwise but upon proof and trial which the context speaking of sins some open going before to judgement others following after seems to evince such cautiousness cannot stand without all possible wayes and means of proof and trial All this is to be solemnized by fasting and prayer in which we have Scripture-precedents Act. 13. 2. When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them they sent them away Acts 14. 23. When they had ordained them Elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they beleeved This I take not to be of the essence of Ordination not necessary to the very being but the better being of it in imploring Gods assistance and blessing It is a great work a work of glorius concernment it is a work above our strength to manage more weighty than our shoulders can bear there is more than parts gifts and endowments whether natural or acquired required in it All supplies being as before we heard to be expected from heaven heaven must be implored God must be earnestly sought in it Fasting should add wings to our prayers that our voice may be heard on high A shadow of this still remained in the Church as appers by those Jejunia quatuor temporum at the times of Ordination which indeed was almost brought to a meer shadow The last thing mentioned in the Definition is imposition of hands A rite or usage in practice before the Law Gen. 48. 14. held in the time of the Law Levit. 1. 4. and continued in the dayes of the Gospel as consisting with the simplicity of it It was used in blessing Gen. 48. 14. Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraims head in his blessing of them Matth. 19 13. They brought children to Christ that he should put his hands on them and pray which accordingly he did Mark 10. 16. He put his hands upon them and blessed them It was used in Offerings Levit. 1. 4. If any man bring an Offering unto the Lord he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him It was used in bearing witnesse as Levit. 24. 14. Where the Lord gives charge concerning the blasphemer Bring forth him that hath cursed without the Camp and let all that have heard him lay their hands upon his head It was used in conferring extraordinary gifts Acts 8. 17. Peter and John laid their hands on those that beleeved in Samaria and they received the Holy Ghost It was used in miraculous cures Mark 6. 5. Christ could do there no mighty works save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folke and healed them Acts 28. 8. It was used in designing men for office and that either civil for the work of the Magistracy Deut. 34. 9. Joshua the son of Nun was full of the Spirit of wisdome for Moses had laid his hands upon him and the children of Israel hearkened unto him and did as Lord commanded Moses Or Ecclesiastical and that for the work of the Lord in the time of the Law Levit. 8. 10. and also in the dayes of the Gospel Acts. 13. 3. And from this rite of imposition of hands in use in this work of Ordination the whole work hath sometimes its denomination 1 Tim. 5 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man where imposition of hands is put for the whole work Some I know would take all this off as to Ordination by laying on of hands by the objection of extraordinary gifts which were this way conferred as was before confessed of which they will have that Text understood 2 Tim. 1. 6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands But this is too weak to avoid it for though we have already said that when the Holy Ghost was given in those extraordinary endowments hands were imposed yet whole Presbyteries cannot ordinarily be conceived to be vested with that power yet they joyntly in this work laid on their hands 1 Tim. 4. 14. And that advice of Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 5. 22. plainly contradicts it lay hands
Scripture speaks of those covenants which God enters with man There are those that enter covenant and keep covenant Psal 44. 17 18. All this is come upon us yet we have not forgotten thee neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant our heart is not turned back neither have our steps declined from thy way These have mercy promised All to which God enegages himself is theirs Psalme 103. 17 18. The meecy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse unto childrens children to such as keep his covenant and to those that remember his commandments to do them There are those that break covenant Psal 78. 10 37. They kept not the covenant of God and refused to walk in his Law Their heart was not right with him neither were they stedfast in his covenant And these are threatned with a curse Jer. 34. 18 19 20. And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me when they cut the calfe in twaine and passed between the parts thereof The Princes of Judah and the Princes of Jerusalem the Eunuches and the Priests and all the people of the land which passed between the parts of the calf I will even give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of them that seek their life and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowles of the heaven and to the beasts of the earth The Lord brings a sword that avenges the quarrel of his covenant Levit. 26. 25. When the heaviest of judgements is mentioned and a large list enumerated as Esay 24. Behold the Lord maketh the earth empty and maketh it waste and turneth it upside down and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof And it shall be as with the People so with the Priest as with the Servant so with his Master as with the Maid so with her Mistresse as with the Buyer so with the Seller as with the Lender so with the Borrower as with the taker of usury so with the giver of usury to him the land shall be utterly empited and utterly spoiled for the Lord hath spoken this word The earth mourneth and fadeth away the haughty people of the earth do languish the earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth and they that dwell therein are desolate therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burnt and few men left the new wine mourneth the vine languisheth all the merry-hearted do sigh The myrth of Tabrets ceaseth the noise of them that rejoyce endeth the joy of the Harp ceaseth They shal not drink wine with a song strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it The city of confusion is broken down every house is shut up that no man may come in There is a crying for wine in the streets all joy is darkned the mirth of the land is gone In the City is left desolation and the Gate is smitten with destruction The reason of all this is given in the close of verse 5. Because they have transgressed the Laws changed the Ordinances broken the everlasting Covenant Now according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into covenant and Regeneration is our keeping of covenant before regeneration we make no covenant after Regeneration we break no covenant there is no such thing as covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the covenant 2. Then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world as in reference towards God no such thing as an hypocrite in the Church as in reference to Religion and wayes of godlinesse An hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not with Jeroboams wife feignes himself to be another person 1 Kings 14. 6. He that acts Tarquin or Lucretia in the Tragedy is not Tarquin or Lucretia that acts a King is many times a peasant Now an hypocrite respective to Religion and in Scripture use of the phrase is one that pretends for God and is not Gods pretends to be wholly his and is some others of these God frequently complaines These in the Scriptures are menaced with heavy judgements Now according to this opinion that only Regenerate men are in covenant there is no such thing as an hypocrite No such sinne as hypocrisie Where the Gospel is preached God makes tender of himself in covenant and in case none but Regenerate enter Covenant then only they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him onely they strike hands with him and these as they professe so in sincerity and reality they are as they covenant with him so in the uprightnesse of their hearts they walk before him and so all of Israel are Israel There cannot be found a man in Israel that is not a Nathaniel Men out of covenant are without and aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel Ephes 2. 12. And if they be in covenant then according to this opinion they are men sincere and upright-hearted in it But you will say They pretend to the covenant and are not in covenant and so are hypocrites Object To this I say 1. It is plain against the Scriptures that makes hypocrites false in the covenant men whose hearts were not stedfast in it as Psalme 78. 8 10 a stubborne and rebellious generation a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not stedfast with God They kept not the covenant of God and refused to walk in his Law More fully verse 36 37. They did flatter him with their mouth and they lied unto him with their tongues for their hearts were not right with him neither were they stedfast in his covenant Therefore they pretend not barely to a covenant but the covenant which they enter is their pretence for God and their breach of covenant argues them guilty of hypocrisie before the Lord. 2 According to these such pretend to the stage but are never admitted on it They pretend to act the part of a Servant of God but never act in it so we may say they pretend to hypocrisie but never are in the honour to be in any capacity of it 3. If the covenant be with this limit only to Regenerate persons then no Minister in any Church no Church-Officer nor any other Church-member in case you will make it to be their work may baptize any person That Disciples are to be baptized is out of question with all that acknowledge such a standing Ordinance as Baptisme It being in the Apostles commission to disciple Nations and baptize them These are brought into the bond of the covenant as Ezek. 20. 37. But those only passing for Disciples and men in covenant that are Regenerate they can by no eye of any Minister Church-Officer or member be discerned This is that work that cometh not with observation or outward shew that men should say so here or so there Luke 17. 20
all children but in Isaac shal thy seed be caled that is they that are the children of the flesh those are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed But saith he the children of the promise are children born after the Spirit whether they descended from Abraham and Isaac or no with much more to this purpose We have drunk up the Protestants poison and their great care is to preserve their party by the Jesuites antidote They are wholly beholding to them for the receipt what probatum est they can write upon it must be examined And that they may not deny but in the examination of this triumphing Argument they have square dealing I shall give you the Authours words at length I deny not saith he but there was some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jerem. 31. 33 36 37. For so the words verse 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17. 7. and the very phrase of Abrahams seed in Isaac shall thy seed be called verse 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed verse 8. Sarah shall have a sonne as verse 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whereto I may adde that the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say it was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran Script Synod de praedest Cap. 8. Sect. 4. is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3. 17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed verse 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods Word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it comprehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abraham posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words vers 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called vers 8. It is expounded thus that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not always the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by natural generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of the promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right may of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejection of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams natural posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right-priviledge that he not onely rejected Ishmael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophecie declaring his minde The elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any Birth-priviledge they could claime Yeelding that this Text in that place is brought into question by the Apostle Before I come to the Apostles words themselves I have divers Queres to put 1. How Baine and Ames come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-Remonstrants 2. Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this Chapter to the Romans he speaks in another manner even in our authours own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with the Apostle saith he are those that by the works of the Law follow after righteousnesse and salvation The sinnes of the promise are those that seek after righteousnesse and salvation by faith in Christ and he thus frames the principal Syllogism of the Apostle for confutation of the Jews arguing from the rejection of the Jews Gods failing in his promise If the word of God comprehend only the sonnes of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh then it follows that the word of God doth not faile though the sons of the flesh be rejected But the word of God comprehends only the sons of promise shutting out the sonnes of the flesh Therefore the word of God doth not faile though the sons of the flesh be rejected Armin. Anal. Cap. 9. ad Ro. p. 781. Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the promise 3. When he affirmes that to be borne after the flesh is all one with the Apostle with legal justiciaries as he doth which is Arminius his Interpretation how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh and children of the promise shut out the natural seed of Abraham are the natural seed of Abraham and legal justiciaries one and the same 4. If the Apostle exclude all the natural seed of Abraham from this Covenant of God as Stapleton argues and from him the Anabaptists and takes in only his spiritual seed how can he be reconciled to himself in the words immediately before this objection he speaks of the Jewes as his kinsmen according to the flesh which were the natural seed of Abraham and saith To them pertaine the Adoption the Glory and the Covenants c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant when in expresse termes he had affirmed that they were in covenant How can he deny that these are children vers 7. when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the Adoption vers 4. Which may be confirmed by abundant other Texts of Scripture Ye are the children of the Lord your God Deut. 14. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Sonne Hosea 11. 1. It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto Dogges Matth. 15. 26. where all that were not Gentiles all to whom Christ was sent are called children
truth with Master Cartwrights authority making them as to the thing full parallel as to every eye they are hath there wrought some silence so I doubt not but it will follow here It is not the Apostles intention Gal. 2. 15. to speak of the birth-priviledg of the Jews nor yet the want of it in the Gentiles yet there he mentions both neither is it his intention to treat of such a distinction of births in the Church Jewish or Christian but the hostile disposition of one so born against another yet in that place he plainly signifies such a distinction of births in either Church both Jewish and Christian Can any man deny that Abraham had two sons of such different births as the Apostle from the hystory in Genesis shews v. 22 23. Ishmael is set out as a son of Abraham and upon that account we know he had the honour of circumcision Isaac had the same but a degree of further honour with it being born as Ishmael was not by promise And whatsoever Allegory the Apostle makes of it which is not to my purpose to examine yet in his reddition or application he looks at the hiâ—story not at the allegory as the adverbs of time Then Now neither of which are allegorised do demonstrate And though Ishmael may be a type of a justitiary seeking righteousnesse by works and persecuting those that seek a righteousnesse by faith whether typus factus or destinatus I will not enquire yet I think it will never be proved that Ishmael was such a one in his own person persecuting Isaac on that account which must be proved if the Apostle in his reddition do no look at the history but the allegory as my adversary contends or else he speaks besides the purpose Then looks at the history denoting time as none can deny and Now must not referre to the allegory without great absurdity My interpretation as is said will not hold in that according to it there is no agreement correspondency or parity in the parts of the compound proposition And I wonder what agreement correspondency or parity there is or can be in the parts of this compound proposition according to the interpretation opposed against me confounding history and allegory together Thus it must be as Ishmael no justitiary then jeered Isaac a sucking babe as my adversary out of Hierome speaks who was not in capacity to look after any righteousnesse so it is now justitiaries persecute those that do follow after righteousnesse by faith If this glosse stand it should not be so it is now but rather now it is otherwise He that will come to a right understanding of the Text must refer this 29. verse to 22 and 23. looking upon verse 24 25 26 27 28. where the allegory is prosecuted as a parenthisis seeing the words in v. 29. cannot be refer'd to the allegory in those words where there is no mention made of persecution but to the history in the former I am told that the Apostles distribution cannot be of a subject by its adjuncts but of a genus into its species because birth is neither substance quantity nor quality but an action or a passion and actions though they be capable of various modifications yet Logiscians as is said do not call them subjects But doubtlesse the person borne is and may be called a subject and stands in a capacity of adjuncts and I look to the persons here distinguished some with more inferior and others with more noble adjuncts When I cite may Master Baine brought in against me as an adversary saying The children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham I am told it is true that Mr. Bayne so interprets the terme children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as I have cited him which place he meant but not the terme he that is borne after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea p. 138. he saith for though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh But how can Mr. Bayne possibly meane Gal. 4 29. as I am here told he doth when he speaks of the children of the flesh when those words are not to be found there but born after the flesh and those terms children of the flesh and born after the flesh are in this very place by my adversary distingushed And though Master Bayne do not quote Gal 4 29. in that place which I mentioned yet Doctor Abbot in Thomsoni diatribam p. 115. saith Circumcisus est Ishmael circumcisus Isaac solus autem Isaac natus secundum spiritum Ishmael tantummodo secundum carnem non est autem justificatus qui natus est tantum modo secundum carnem Ishmael quanquam circumcisus non est tamen justificatus c. Here he plainly makes the birth of the flesh an honour giving circumcision though an honour inferiour to that of the birth of the spirit which justification accompanies and he quotes Gal. 4. 29. as a proof of what he speaks and I am much engaged to my Antagonist for his quotation out of Hierome Sicut ergo tum major frater Ishmael lactentem adhuc parvulum persequabatur Isaac sibi circumcisionis prerogativum sibi primogenita vendicans ita nunc c. Whence had he this prerogative of circumcision but from this birth that I speak of from Abraham and there is the like prerogative of birth still continuing or else there is no parity in the Apostles reddition Here I shall take notice of a fourfold absurdity endeavoured to be fastened upon me 1. That I understand this to be said of Infants which then must be said to persecute But I understand it not of Infants but of those which sometimes were Infants and had their birth in infancy from such and such parents 2. That I take being born after the flesh in the latter part to note a natural birth but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning who considers persons borne after the flesh not as borne by humane members and seed but as born by a fleshly covenant otherwise it would import no allegory contrary to the Apostles speech ver 24. which tells us these things are an allegory If I should take it in one part of the proposition in one sense and in another part of the proposition in another sense I should then quite spoile the agreement which I am told must be in it and then I might have been indeed argued against for an absurdity whereas it is said that the Apostle considers persons borne after the flesh not as born by humane members and seed but as borne by a fleshly Covenant I say that that is false as to the history and I have shewed by reasons that have yet no satisfying answer that the Apostle
both those This is proved because our Saviour from their estate inferres a likenesse to them in others for the same estate Apolog p. 150. This Argument what colour soever it carries yet it is not conclusive It may be taken more largely in Christs argumentation and in a more restrained sense in his words of Instruction or Application as in a place much parallel I shall shew 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. There we have the Apostles reproof vers 1. and his reason vers 2. as in the Evangelists we have Christs assertion confirming his reproof ver 14. and his application ver 15. Now Saint in the Apostles reproof is taken more largly than it is taken in his reason A visible Saint is meant in the first place a real and glorified Saint in the second visible Saints may judge in small matters for real Saints in glory shall judge the world shall judge Angels and so it may be here infants have their present title to the visible Kingdome and men qualified as infants shall only enter the Kingdome of Glory His second reason that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church and therefore speaks not of the Church visible I know not how to make up into a reason If I understood it I would either yield or answer it The third reason that the speech Mark 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of Glory Ergo so here is answered already If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18 3 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike to Matth. 18. 3 4. Thirdly Were it granted him that the Kingdome of Glory must be understood both in Christs reason and application yet he is nothing holpen Infants have right to the Church visible militant because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Acts 2. 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Not necessarily saved but now having entered Covenant with God they were in a capacity and therefore added as visible Church-members Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise It is said that if this proposition were granted that they have right to the Church visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized Answ If election or non-election must steere us in admission to Baptisme this were to purpose interposed but when there is nothing that can be objected against them as hindring their salvation it is sufficiently proved that it may not hinder their Baptisme That must not be pleaded against any as a barre to hinder their admission into the Church on earth that will not hinder their admission into the Church in heaven CHAP. LIV. Reasons evincing the Birth-priviledge and Covenant-holinesse of the issue of Beleevers HAving already so largely insisted upon by Scripture proofs that children are in covenant with parents and that priviledges of Ordinances which necessarily imply a covenant do descend to posterity I shall lay down certain grounds some of them making way towards and others necessarily inferring of themselves the conclusion First This is of the nature of those things which descend from Parent to childe from Ancestors to Posterity which is in their power to convey to their issue There are those things indeed which are personally inherent in men and proper to them so that they cannot convey them to their issue there is no deriving of them to others by succession As 1. Individual accidents of the body wounds scarres or comelinesse of feature these are so in the Parent that they are not conveyed to their children 2. Habits or proper gifts whether acquired by pains or infused The son of a learned man inherits not his fathers gifts The son of an Artificer is no such Artist The son of a Prophet hath not by vertue of birth the gift of prophecy nor is the son of a regenerate man endowed with saving grace for that reason There are on the contrary those things that passe from Parent to childe which the Parent by nature or special priviledge hath power to convey As 1. The essential or integral part of a Species with the natural properties that do accompany it so one brute beast brings forth another one brid brings for another and man brings forth one of mankind 2. The priviledges or burdens which in Family or Nation are hereditary they are conveyed from Parents to Posterity from Ancestors to their issue As is the Father so is the child as respecting these particulars This none have questioned and these things in hand being of the same nature it is a faire propable ground of it self if evidence to the contrary from Scripture be not cleare that they are thus still transmitted Secondly It is so in Kingdomes Common-wealths Cities in Corporations Families The son of a Noble man is Noble of a Free-man is Free Acts 22. 28. As the sonne of a bond-man where by the Law of Nations they are bond men is a bond-man likewise Exod. 21. 4. Now we know that in Scripture the Church of God is frequently stiled by these names By the most honourable of them Mat. 8. 11 12. Mat. 21. 43. Ephes 2. 19. Hebrewes 12. 22. Ephesians 3. 15. to let us understand that as Cities Kingdomes Families have their priviledges so the people of God in covenant have theirs â—ikewise But we are told Object You do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free Election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnal respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right Protestant Divines are taken up by the Jesuites in the self same way for this very thing A Lapide on 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith Hence Calvin and Beza have drawn their opinion of a birth-righteousnesse and say that the children of Beleevers are holy and saved without Baptisme because on this account that they are Beleevers children they are reputed to be born in the Church within that Divine covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17. 7. As children in the civil Law are accounted free whose parents are either of them free but saith he they are deceived and gives his reason The Church is not a civil Common-wealth but supernatural and there is no man born a Christian but spiritually new borne and is made holy not civilly but really by faith hope and charity infused into the soul So Stapleton on the same words in his Antidotum applying the Spiritual Antidote against Calvins Carnal Poyson saith
That Jewes carnally descended from Abraham or the children of Christians may be made partakers of the Covenant entered of God with Abraham Birth according to the flesh does nothing So also Bellarmine speaking of the covenant with Abraham saith It descends to us not by carnal but spiritual generation So that these men have sucked the spiritual meaning from the Jesuites and Master Marshal holds to the carnal imaginations of Protestant Reformers They produce many Texts of Scripture where this Birth-priviledge in their thoughts is evidently set forth Jesuites contradict it and upon this account it is a carnal imagination to conceive it The Apostle knew not saith one that God had so by promise Object or other engagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9. 15. If this be meant of any engagement of God to confer saving graces or habitual qualifications on the natural seed of Beleevers the words then carry reason with them But neither he nor his great friends will learn to distinguish between Gods conditional covenant contained in priviledges of Ordinances and habitual saving graces otherwise they know from Moses that God exercised this freedome in making choise of Israel above all Nations and that the Apostle knew and in the same Chapter lets us know Rom. 9. 4. that to them pertained the covenants and that this was their prerogative for Birth-priviledge Rom. 3. 1. We say the son of a Free-man is Free the son of a Noble-man is Noble we never said that the son of a Learned-man is Learned we say that the son of a Christian is a Christian as to interest in Ordinances We never said that the son of a Regenerate man is Regenerate It is further urged Object If this were true that the covenant of Grace is a birth-right-priviledge then the children of Beleevers are children of Grace by nature for that which is a birth-right-priviledge is a priviledge by nature And if Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Nobleman is Noble the child of a Free-man is Free the child of a Turk is a Turk of a Jew a Jew the child of a Christian is a Christian Then Christians are born Christians and not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether it may not advantage the Pelagians and deniers of Original sinne it concernes those that use such speeches to consider To this I answer It concernes those that presse these objections to see how Chamier Paraeus and other Protestant Writers answer them when they are in their very words urged by Jesuites If they can reconcile Galat. 2. 15. with Ephes 2. 3. then they have an answer The Apostle was by birth of the people of God in covenant and yet by nature a childe of wrath It is further said Object To conceive that it is in Gods Churches as in other Kingdomes and after the Lawes of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errours It is well that they have learned an Artifice from these superstition-hating Jesuites to keep out the inlet of superstition among us if there were no parallel held betwixt the Church of God and other Kingdomes after the manner of the Law of Nations but such that are Seminaries of superstition they may do well to acquaint us how it comes to passe that the Curch in Scripture hath the name of a City Family Kingdome Similitudes ever carry some resemblance If this were the alone ground on which the Birth-priviledge of Christians were bottomed they had said something but being only an illustration of it and nothing more they are over lavish in their censure Similitudes indeed may be over-stretched beyond their reach and if they had laid down rules to declare where the Similitude holds and where it holds not as I have done in the Birth-priviledge and made it appear that it holds not in that for which I produce it they had said somewhat to the purpose Read Mal. 1. 6 8 14. and tell me whether there be any ground laid for dangerous superstitions Thirdly It is so in all other Religions they keep up their priviledge of interest in the worship of their Ancestors The childe of a Turke is a Turke the childe of a Pagan is a Pagan the child of a Jew is a Jew And it is the Apostles Argument in like case respective to Ecclesiastical communion that because Sacramental communion rendered them one Ecclesiastical body with Christians so communion in worship will make one body with those of other Religions 1 Cor. 10. 17 18 19. See Paraeus on the words and Cudworths True notion of the Lords Supper There are common principles that are the same in all Religions and we must beleeve them to hold unlesse Scripture hold forth a difference Fourthly God ownes children born in the Church as by birth his his servants Levit. 25. 39 40 41 42. If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor and be sold unto thee thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant but as an hired servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee and shall serve thee unto the year of Jubile And then shall he depart from thee both he and his children with him and shall return unto his own family and unto the possession of his fathers shall he returne For they are my servants Root and Branch Parent and childe are servants of God As they were the servants of their Master when they could do them actually no service by reason of their relation to them so they are the servants of God on the same account And as he owns them as his servants so also he ownes them as by birth his children Ezek. 16. 20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sonnes and thy daughters whom thou hast borne unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy Whoredomes a small matter That thou hast slain my children and delivered them to cause them to passe through the fire for them If there were no Birth-priviledge how had God this property in Infants and this David pleads Ps 116. 16. O Lord I am thy servant truly I am thy servant and the son of thy hand-maid because he was borne in Gods house and was a childe of a servant of his he pleads his interest Fifthly If the child be not in covenant the parent and childe are heterogeneal and respective to Church-relation in the most opposite condition the Parent in the Kingdom of God by vertue of the faith that he professes the childe in the Kingdome of Satan by reason of his non-interest in the Promise and want of title to Covenant-relation But Scripture makes them still as one Jewes children are Jewes by nature Gentiles children are sinners that is Gentiles by nature The Root being holy the Branches are holy Parents not sanctified children are unclean but Parents