A41355:120
The Marrow of Modern Divinity
The marrow of modern divinity touching both the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, with their use and end, both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the time of the New : wherein every one may clearly see how far forth he bringeth the law into the case of justification, and so deserveth the name of legalist : and how far forth he rejecteth the law, in the case of sanctification, and so deserveth the name of Antinomist : with the middle path between them both, which by Jesus Christ leadeth to eternal life : in a dialogue, betwixt Evangelista, a minister of the Gospel, Nomista, a legalist, Antinomista, an Antinomian, and Neophytus, a young Christian / by the author, E.F. ; before the which there is prefixed the commendatory epistles of divers divines of great esteem in the city of London ; whereunto is also added, the substance of aThe marrow of modern divinity touching both the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, with their use and end, both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the time of the New : wherein every one may cleerly see how far forth he bringeth the law into the case of justification, and so deserverh the name of legalist : and how far forth he rejecteth the law, in the case of sanctification, and so deserveth the name of Antinomist : with the middle path between them both, which by Iesus Christ leadeth to eternall life : in a dialogue, betwixt Evangelista, a minister of the Gospel, Nomista, a legalist, Antinomista, an Antinomian, and Neophytus, a young Christian / by the author, E.F. ; before the which there is prefixed the commendatory epistles of divers divines of great esteem in the citie of London ; whereunto is also added, the substance of a
London: printed by R. Leybourn for Giles Calvert, 1646
THE MARROW OF Modern Divinity.THE MARROVV OF Modern Divinity.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Nom. But why then did not the Lord ⟨p. 14⟩create him immutable? or why did he not so over-rule him in that action, that he might not have eaten the forbidden fruit?
Evan. 1The reason why the Lord did not create him immutable, was because he would be obeyed out of judgement, and free choice, and not by fatal necessity, and absolute determination; and withal let me tell you, it was not reasonable to restrain God to this point, to make man such a one as would not,2 or could not sin at all, for it was at his choice to create him how he pleased, but why he did not uphold him with strength of steadfast continuance, that resteth hidden in Gods secret Counsel: howbeit this we may certainly conclude, that Adams state was such, as served to take away from him all excuse, for he received so much, that of his own will he wrought his own destruction, because that act of his was a wilful transgression of a Law,3 under the precepts whereof he was most justly created, and unto the malediction whereof he was as necessarily and righteously subject if he transgressed; for as by being Gods creature he was to be subject to his will, so by being Gods prisoner, he was as justly subject to his wrath, and that so much the more, by how much the precept was most just, the ⟨p. 15⟩obedience more easy, the transgression more unreasonable, and the punishment more certain.
Evan. 1The reason why the Lord did not create him immutable, was because hee would be obeyed out of judgement, and free choice, and not by fatall necessity, and absolute determination; and withall let me tell you, it was not reasonable to restraine God to this point, to make man such a one as would not,