dead carkasse his living faith to dead unbelief his humility to loathsome pride see what a conclusion he makes I thank God through Jesus Christ It 's true many times the people of God out of the sense of their sinne are driven off from Christ but this is not the Scriptures direction That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt peace in Christ for thy terrour And in this consideration it is that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law and about sinne All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel so as if the discovering of the one did quite drive from the other And this is the reason why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ taking up every crumb that falls from his table they are Christs to themselves and self-saviours I deny not but the preaching of Christ and about grace may also make us prize grace and Christ but such is our corruption that all is little enough Let me adde these cautions 1. It 's of great consequence in what sense we use the Word Law He that distinguisheth well teacheth well Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points and indeed the reason why some can so hardly endure the word Law is because they attend to the use of the word in English or the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Lex as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle which understand it a strict rule only of things to be done and that by way of meere command But now the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth comprehend more for that doth not only signifie strictly what is to be done but it denoteth largely any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept and hence it is that the Apostle calleth it The law of faith which in some sense would be a contradiction and in some places where the word Law is used absolutely it 's much questioned whether he mean the Law or the Gospel and the reason why he calls it a law of faith is not as Chrysostome would have it because hereby he would sweeten the Gospel and for the words sake make it more pleasing to them but happily in a meere Hebraisme as signifying that in generall which doth declare and teach the will of God The Hebrewes have a more strict word for precept and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some say this also sometimes signifieth a Promise Psal 133. 3. There the Lord commanded a blessing i. e. promised so John 12. 50. his commandement i. e. his promise is life everlasting So then if we would attend to the Hebrew words it would not so trouble us to heare that it is good But yet the use of the word Law is very generall sometimes it signifieth any part of the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law Ye are gods And that is in the Psalmes Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament sometimes the Law and the Psalmes are distinguished sometimes it is used for the ceremoniall law only Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law only as Galat. 5. Against such there is no law sometimes it is used for that whole oiconomy and peculiar dispensation of Gods worship unto the Jewes in which sense it is said to be untill John but grace and truth by Jesus Christ sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jewes as without Christ And thus the Apostle generally in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians Indeed this is a dispute between Papists and us In what sense the Law is taken for the Papists would have it understood onely of the ceremoniall law But we answer that the beginning of the dispute was about the observation of those legall ceremonies as necessary to salvation But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis and sheweth that not only those ordinances but no other works may be put in Christs roome Therefore the Antinomian before he speaks any thing against or about the Law he must shew in what sense the Apostle useth it Sometimes it is taken strictly for the five books of Moses yea it is thought of many that book of the Law so often mentioned in Scripture which was kept with so much diligence was onely that book called Deuteronomy and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandements Now the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense and pleadeth for it in another 2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God The Law is only light to the understanding the Spirit of God must circumcise the heart to love it and delight in it otherwise that is true of Gods Law which Aristotle 2. Polit. cap. 2. said of all humane Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's not able of it self to make good and honest Citizens This is a principle alwayes to be carried along with you for the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spirituall life and the Law is part of this Word of God This I proved before nay should the Morall Law be quite abolished yet it would not be for this end because the Spirit of God did not use it as an instrument of life for we see all sides grant that circumcision and the sacraments are argued against by the Apostle as being against our Salvation and damnable in their own use now yet in the old Testament those sacraments of Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb were spirituall meanes of faith as truly as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are It is true there is a difference in the degree of Gods grace by them but not in the truth and therefore our Divines do well consute the Papists who hold those sacraments onely typicall of ours and not to be really exhibitive of grace as these are in the New Testament Therefore if the Apostles arguing against the Morall Law would prove it no instrument of Gods Spirit for our good the same would hold also in Circumcision and all those sacraments and therefore at least for that time they must grant it a help to Christ and grace as well as Circumcision was If you say Why then doth the Apostle argue against the works of the Morall Law I answer Because the Jewes rested in them without Christ and it is the fault of our people they turn the Gospel into the Law and we may say Whosoever seeks to be saved by his Baptisme he falls off from Christ 3. To doe a thing out of obedience to the Law and yet by love and delight doe not oppose one another About this I see a perpetuall mistake To lead a man by the Law is slavish it 's servile say they a Beleever is carried by
Sapiens est cui res sapiunt pro ut sunt he is a wise man to whom things do taste and relish as they are divine and holy things as holy earthly things as earthly and fading then certainly by this Law of God there was true wisdome prescribed Other arguments Moses doth bring as The great authority God put upon the Law The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law from the manner of delivering it Which Law he declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant Now this take notice of that the word Covenant to omit other significations is taken sometimes syecdochially for part of the Covenant as it is here in these words The Doctrine I will insist upon is That the Law was delivered by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant way Or The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant and the reall properties of a Covenant 1. The name of a Covenant 2 King 18. 12. Because they obeyed not the voyce of the Lord their God but transgressed his Covenant and all that Moses the servant of God commanded Deut 17. 2. If there be found any that hath wrought wickednesse in transgressing the Covenant which was the ten Commandements as appeareth ver 3. And more expresly 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord that he made with the children of Israel Yea if we would speake exactly and strictly the books of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament he doth not meane the writings or books but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod 3 24. from the 3. v. to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not meddle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore we see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore we have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinkled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that he may establish them to be a people unto himself and that he may be a God unto them Again you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his wayes And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plain the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle cals it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the books writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian cals the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Only the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodox and this doth arise from the different places of the Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus that it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing only as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a Popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speake of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secondary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact
Aristotle sheweth in many reasons against Plato What would have been in innocency if Adam had stood whether a common right to all things or a divided propriety I speak of goods is hard to say But as for the practice of the Church of Jerusalem that was occasionall and necessary therefore not to be a ground for perpetuall command for other Churches did it not as appeareth by the almes that were gathered nor was it laid necessarily upon all to sell what they had as appeareth by Paul's speech to Ananias Use 1. If God be so angry with those that abuse naturall light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospel light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifugae as Bats and Owles are In one Chapter God is said three times to deliver them up because they did not glorifie God according to Natures light how much more then according to the Gospels light Gravis est lux conscientiae said Seneca but gravior est lux Evangelii The light of the Ministery and Word must needs be more troublesome to thy sinfull wayes Use 2. Of Examination whether even among Christians may not be found men no better then Heathens Now such are 1. Ignorant people how few have any knowledge of God 2. Violent adherers to former Idololatricall courses taken up by fore-fathers There is this difference between an Idolater and a true Beleever The Beleever is like those creatures that you can make nothing lye on their backs unlesse it be fastened by some Scripture or reason but the Heathen is like the Camell that had a back for burdens on purpose so that any idolatry he would bear though it were not tyed on by arguments 3. Such as are inordinately distracted about the things of this world Matth. 6. After these things doe the Heathens seek Hast thou not much of an Heathen in thee 4. Such as rage at Christ and his reformation Psal 2. Why doe the Heathens rage LECTURE IX ROM 2. 14. For the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law WE have handled those things that concern the light and conduct of Nature now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature for herein are two extreme errours one of the Pelagian Papist and Arminian with others who lift up this power too high The enemies of grace lurk under the praises of nature Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory works upon the heart of a man holding that Christ immediately communicateth himselfe to grosse sinners abiding so and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ which all orthodox do yet they expresse it in an unsound sense comparing God unto a Physician that doth violently open the sick mans throat and poure down his physick whether he will or no whereas God though he doth convert fortiter yet he doth it also suaviter Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing we will lay down these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is not indeed a Scripture name but meerly ecclesiasticall and hath been so abused that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded but if we speak of the quid sit and not the quid possit the being of it and not the working of it we must necessarily acknowledge it The neerest expression to the word Free-will is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over his own will but generally the Scripture useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as we intend There is in all men naturally that power whereby through the help of Reason he chooseth this and refuseth another-thing only this must not be extended to the things of grace Now to say what this Free-will is is very hard Perkins following some Schoole-men maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will others a third reall distinct power from them but it may probably be thought that it is nothing but the will in electing or refusing such things so that we call it the Will in those things it 's necessarily carried out to as to will what is good and not sin as sin and then Free-will when it 's carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it Even as in the Understanding while the Understanding doth consider first Principles it 's called Intellectus while Conclusions that are gathered from them it 's called Ratio Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us when they say we turn men into beasts for we hold the Understanding going before and the Will after and this is more then a meere spontaneous inclination in things naturall Therefore it is that we do not bid the fire burn or perswade an horse to goe because there is not Understanding or Will in these things as there is in a man 2. This which is left in us is not able to performe naturall actions without the generall help of God That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally must still be limited to his proper sphere to naturall and civill actions or some externally religious duties but even then we must acknowledge a generall help or assistance of God without which we could not doe any naturall thing so that place in the Acts In him we live and move and have our being by which we prove that God doth not onely give us the principles of being and moving but we move in him i. e. by him Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians that thought without the generall aide of God a man might move his finger or write and speak There have beem some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power o◠actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then mee◠preservation of our being no concourse or aide of God helping us in the action Thus Durand of old and one Dodo of late who hath written a Book onely to that purpose but the place abovesaid doth evidently convince it and we see that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning which could not be otherwise then by denying his actuall aide to the working of the fire For to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies were to make the miracle there where the Scripture doth not lay it If you aske then why this may not be called a speciall help of God as well as that whereby we are inabled to beleeve or repent I answer there is a great deal of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in regard of their positive nature as well
those titles of commendation which are due to it now in what sense the Law is said to be ordained by Angels is hard to say That you may the better understand this place compare with it Act. 7. v. 53. Who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels Heb. 2. 2. If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast c. Deut. 33. 2. The Lord came from Sinai with ten thousands of Saints from his right hand went a fiery law for them though this seemeth to refer to the people of Israel rather then the Angels But the Septuagint interpret it of Angels In the Greek we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as command sanction and ordaining as Rom. 13. 2. The ordinance of God so then the sence of the places put together amounts to thus much That Iesus Christ Act 7. 38. Who is the Angel that spake to Moses in the mount and the same which appeared to him in the bush ver 35 being accompanied with thousands of Angels did from the midst of them give Moses this law and Jesus Christ is here called the Angel because of his outward apparition like one The Sanctuary did express this giving of the Law for their God sate between the Cherubims and from the midst of them uttered his Oracles for Moses was commanded to build the Tabernacie according to the pattern as he saw in the Mount and that is the meaning of the Psal 68. 8. The chariots of God are twenty thousand Angels the Lord is in the miâ—st of them Sinaâ— is in â—he holy place So a learned man Deiu interpreteth it that is God doth in the Sanctuary from the Cherubims deliver his Oracles as he did the Law on Mount Sinai from between Angels and thus you have this fully explained In the next place you have the remote cause by the hand of a Mediator Some understand this of Moses that he was the Mediator in giving the Law between God and the Iews and so that Text Deut. 5. 5. where Moses is said to stand between the Lord and them may seem to confirm this interpretation and Moses indeed may be said to be a Mediator typically as the sacrifices were types of Christs blood and as he is called Act. 7. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Redeemer though Beza and our English Bible renders it a deliverer But many interpreters understand it of Christ that he was the Mediator in the Law and indeed the words following seem to approve of this for saith the Apostle a Mediator is not a Mediator of one that is of those that are one in consent and accord but of those that dissent now Moses could not be truly and really a Mediator between God and the people of Israel when God was angry with them for their sins Besides the Law as is to be shewed is a Covenant of grace and Christ onely can be the Mediator in such a Covenant by way of Office because he only is Medius in his nature Beza indeed brings Arguments against this interpretation but they seem not strong enough to remove this sense given neither doth this phrase by the hand which is an Hebraisme denote alwaies ministery and inferiority but sometimes power and strength but more of this in the explication of the doctrine Obser It was a great honour put upon the Law in that it was delivered by Christ accompanied with thousands of Angels There was never any such glorious Senate or Parliament as this Assembly was wherein the Law wâ—â— enacted Iesus Christ himself being the Speaker and by how much the mâ—â—â— glory God put upon it the greater is the sin of those Doctrines which do dâ—rogate from it Indeed though Christ gave the Law yet the Apostle make the preheminency of the Gospel far above it because Christ gave the Law onely in the form of an Angel but he gave the gospel when made man whereby was manifested the glory not of Angels but of the onely begotten Son of God how carefull then should men be lest they offend or transgress that Law which hath such sacred authority It is a wonder to see how men are afraid to break mans Law which yet cannot damn but tremble not at all in the offending of that Law-giver who is only able to save or destroy For the opening of this consider First that Iesus Christ is the Angel that gave this Law as the chief captain of all those Angels that did accompany him For Act. 7. 35. It is the same that appeared to Moses in the bush God the Father hath committed the whole Government and guidance of the redemption of that people of Israel into the hands of Christ Hence Isa 6. 3. 9. he is called the Angel of the Covenant because he made that Covenant of the Law with his people on mount Sinai This is the Angel that Exod. 33. 2. God said he would send before them to drive out the Nations of the land and v 14. there he is called the face of God or his presence which should go before them and you have a notable place Exod. 23. 20. I will send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared beware of him provoke him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my name is in him by this it is clear that it was Iesus Christ who was subservient to the Father in this whole work of Redemption out of Aegypt Grotius in the explication of the Decalogue judgeth it a grievous errour to hold that the second person in the Trinity was the Angel who gave this Law and indeed all the Socinians deny this because they say Christ had no subsistency before his Incarnation some Papists also think it to be a created Angel but he must needs be God because this Angel beginneth thus in the promulgation of the Law I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Aegypt Neither wil that serve for an answer which Grotius saith that the Angel cals himself the God that brought them out of Aegypt because he is an Embassador and speaks in the name of the Lord for were not the Prophets Gods Embassadors yet their language was Thus saith the Lord they never appropriated the name of Iehovah to themselves whereas this Angel is called Iehovah and 1 Cor. 10. 9. The Iews are said to tempt Christ because he was the Angel that did deliver them by Moses It is disputed whether when any Angel appeared who was also God that it was also the Son of God so that in the Old Testament the Father and the Holy ghost never appeared but the Son only Austin thought it a question worth the deciding when he spent a great part of his second book of the Trinity in handling of it Many of the ancient Fathers thought that it was the Son onely that appeared so that all the apparitions which were to Adam to Abraham to Moses the God
this was wholly from Moses and could be no other way And this is further evident by James chap. 2. 8 10. in his Epistle which is generall and so to Gentiles converted as well as to the Jews Now mark those two expressions v. 8. If you fulfill the royall Law according to the Scriptures that is of Moses where the second Table containeth our love to our neighbour and then v. 10. He that said Do not commit adultery said also Do not kill where you see he makes the Argument not in the matter but in the Author who was God by Moses to the people of Israel And if you say Why should these Commandments reach to them I answer because as it is to be shewed in answering the objections against this truth the Jews and we are looked upon as one people Observe that place 1 Cor. 10. The Apostle writing to the Corinthians saith Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and sea c. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians but only because since they beleeved they were looked upon as one The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Sabbath day This is a full Argument to me that the Morall Law given by Moses doth binde us Christians for supposing that opinion which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox that the Sabbath day is perpetuall and that by vertue of the fourth Commandment we cannot then but gather that the Commandments as given by Moses do binde us For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materiae by reason of the matter and ratione ministerii by reason of the ministry for the seventh day cannot binde from the matter of it there being nothing in nature why the seventh rather then the fifth should oblige but only from the meer Command of God for that day and yet it will not follow that we are bound to keep the Jewish seventh day as the Learned shew in that controversie Now then those that deny the Law as given by Moses must needs conclude that we keep the Sabbath day at the best but from the grounds of the New-Testament and not from the fourth Command at all And howsoever it be no argument to build upon yet all Churches have kept the morall Law with the Preface to it and have it in their Catechismes as supposing it to belong unto us And when those prophane opinions and licentious doctrines came up against the Sabbath Day did not all learned and sound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandments Therefore that distinction of theirs The Morall Law bindes as the Law of Nature but not as the Law of Moses doth no wayes hold for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature in regard of the determinate time but hath its morality and perpetuity from the meere positive Commandment of God The fourth Argument from Reason that it is very incongruous to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetuall duty How probable can it be that God delivering the Law by Moses should intend a temporary obligation only when the matter is perpetualy As if it had been thus ordered You shall have no other gods but till Moses his time You shall not murder or commit adultery but till his ministry lasteth and then that obligation must cease and a new obligation come upon you Why should we conceive that when the matter is necessary and perpetuall God would alter and change the obligations None can give a probable reason for any such alteration Indeed that they should circumcise or offer sacrifices till Moses ministry lasted onely there is great reason to be given thus Austin well answered Porphyrius that objected God was worshipped otherwayes in the Old-Testament then in the New That is no matter saith Austin if that which be worshipped be the true object though it be worshipped divers waves when appointed by him no more then when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages The fifth Argument If the Law by Moses do not binde us then the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not also belong unto us For this you must know that Moses in other places doth explane this Law and Davids Psalmes and Solomons Proverbs as also the Prophesies of the Prophets so farre as they are Morall are nothing but explications of the Morall Law Now what a wide doore will here be open to overthrow the Old-Testament If I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. Set your hearts upon these words which I testifie to you this day because it is your life c. to urge Christians to keep the Commandments of the Lord it may be replyed What is that to us we have nothing to do with Moses The matter indeed doth belong to us as it is in the New-Testament but as it is there written so we have nothing to do with it And by this meanes all our Texts and proofes which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected And therefore Dominicus à Soto who is among the Papists for the negative expresly saith lib. 2. de Just jure quaest 5. Art 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the old-Old-Testament unto Christians as in respect of the obliging force of it This is plainly to overthrow the Old-Testament Now let us consider what are the chiefest Arguments which they bring for the support of this opinion that the Law as given by Moses doth not binde Christians And first they urge the Preface I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of Egypt This doth not belonge to us because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt say they further The temporall Promise to keep the Law doth not belong to us therefore Ephes chap. 6 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandment with Promise he doth not keep to the Promise particularly that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God shall give thee but speakes generally first by adding something that it may be well with thee which was not in the first Promise then secondly by detracting saying only that thou mayest live long upon the earth in generall Now to the Preface some answer thus That we may be said literally to be in Egypt and they goe upon this ground that we are made one with the people of the Jewes and they bring the eleventh of the Romanes to prove this where the Gentiles are said to be graffed in so that they become of the same stock And it is plane that the Beleevers are Abrahams seed and then by this interpretation whatsoever mercy was vouchsafed unto them we are to account it as ours This cannot well be rejected but yet I shall not pitch upon this Others therefore they say That this bondage was typicall of our spirituall bondage and the deliverance out of it was typicall of our deliverance from Hell But this is not so literall an interpretation as I desire though I think
Gospel that all sins are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meer declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Iustification The forenamed Author hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTVRE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith WE have confuted the false differences and now come to lay down the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into it's opposite Species but of the subject according to it 's severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they do expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of works and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Iews that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Iews did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacramenrs but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1. Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summ of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda things to be beleeved speranda things to be hoped for facienda things to be done Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a vail upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ only to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called Ecclesia but never Synagoge the meeting of the Jews called always Synagoge but never Ecclesia doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called Synagoge although Cameron Praelect de Eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word Synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal and carnal yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins observation shewing that the Jews should first be allured by temporal mercies and afterwards the Christians by spiritual As saith he first that which is animal and then that which is spiritual The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animal was first and then that which is spiritual Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet we see David making God his portion and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meer outward mercies These good things promised to the Jews were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernel and the shell but the Jews for the most part looked only to the outward Hence Christ when he opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernel to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in moral things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and clear as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which he brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law and the Prophets which he must have said if
of Aristides who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore answered Propound to day and I will answer to morrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly but take time to be diligent and considering 5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion that differeth from the learned and godly be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it The Apostle giveth a good rule Rom. 14. Hast thou faith have it to thy self He doth not there command a man to equivocate or dissemble and deny a truth but not needlesly to professe it when it will be to the offence of others Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their own accord to the Heathen Magistrates professing themselves Christians whereby they were put to death hath a good and elegant speech Confiteri nos magis voluit quà m profiteri he doth confesse that doth it being asked and demanded he doth professe that doth it out of his own free accord 6. Consider that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow grace and Christ For he sets up free grace and Christ not who names it often in his Book or in the Pulpit but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it Now who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two i. Who urgeth no use of the Law who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin who denieth humiliation or he who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects Certainly this later will much more in heart and reall affections set up free grace FINIS THE TABLE A. THe Law abolished as a Covenant not as a Rule Page 213 The Law abrogated to beleevers in six particulars p. 217. 218. 219. 220 Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremoniall Law which agree not to the morall p. 222 Six abuses of the Law p. 17. 18. 19. 20 Conversion and Repentance are our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace p. 99 Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit p. 110 Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturalls or supernaturalls answered in two Positions p. 132 Whether Adam needed Christs help p. 133 Whether God required lesse of Adam then us p. 138 Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience though not amorem mercenarium p. 14 What help the Angels had by Christ p. 134 Calvin's two Reasons why Angels needed Christs mediation ibid. Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed p. 88 Foure limitations concerning those antecedaneous works p. 88. 89 The first Antinomian p. 39 Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted p. 243. 246 The Antinomian why most inexcusable p. 45 The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it a contradiction p. 214 The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbeleevers as well as beleevers p. 217 The opinion of the old Antinomians p. 277 The word As taken variously p. 165 Antidotes against Antinomian errors p. 279 Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace p. 281 B. A Blaspheming Monk p. 27 Blaspheming Papists ibid. The Lay-mans book is the whole universe p. 77 Master Burton his Report of Antinomians p. 278 C. A Cordiall for a broken heart p. 22. 23 Contradictions of the Antinomians p. 31 A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature p. 83 Christs Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall p. 135 It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law p. 210 The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law p. 211 God entred into Covenant with Adam in giving him a law p. 122. 123 What a Covenant implyes p. 124 Why the Covenant of grace is not still a covenant of works seeing works are necessary p. 48 A Covenant of Friendship Reconciliation p. 124 No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man p. 126 How God can covenant with man ibid. Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way rather then in an absolute way p. 127. 128 A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace p. 129. 130 The morall law delivered as a covenant proved p. 230 It hath the reall properties of a covenant ib. In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace explained p. 232. 233 Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace p. 234. 235. 236 Objections answered p. 237 Doctor Crisp confuted p. 15 Cursing taken two waies 1 Potentially so a law is alwaies condemning 2. Actually so a law is not ever condemning p. 6 D. DEcalogue resembled to the ten Predicaments by Martyr and why p. 3 The threatning of death to Adam if he did eat c. was fulfilled in that he became then mortall and in a state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also p. 109. 110 Determination to one takes not away naturall liberty nor willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried unto p. 89. 90 Three generall waies of proving the Deity of Christ p. 133. 134 Foure differences not substantiall but accidentall betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 251 c. Fire Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel strictly taken p. 257. 258. 259 c. All Doctrine reduced to three heads Credenda Speranda Facienda p. 252. 253. E. THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia and Synagoge confuted p. 252 If the Antinomians end were only to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of workes to Justification it were more tolerable p. 31 but then their books and end were not reconcileable p. 32 Other ends which might make the Antinomians more excusable ibid. How Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse p. 267 End taken two waies ibid. Four waies Christ is the perfective end of the Law p. 270. 271 Aquinas distinction of end p. 267 Eudoxus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 77 Exhortations to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to doe them p. 98 Errours in Doctrine damnable p. 279 F. FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers p. 2 How Faith justifies p. 43 Two acts of Faith p. 44 Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel p. 261. 262 The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature p. 73 Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first p. 120 Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency and shall be in heaven p. 128 Adams faith considered as an act of the soul not as an organ to lay hold on Christ p. 129 Finger of God p. 157 Finis indigentiae assimilationis