strict rule of things to be done by way of command but denoteth any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept 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 onely 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 acceptions of the word Law in Scripture are divers the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law You 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 onely Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law onely 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 Christ Jesus 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 onely 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 bookes 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 Denteronomy 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 This is 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated a principle alwaies 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 owne 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 doe well confute 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 turne 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 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another 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 love he needs no law and I shall shew you Chrysostome hath some such hyperbolicall expressions upon the words following The Law is not put for the righteous But this is very weak to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together for the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth Take an instance in Adam While he stood he did obey out of love and yet because of the command also We may illustrate it by Moses his mother You know she was hired and commanded by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse Moses which was her own childe now she did this out of love to Moses her childe yet did obey Pharaoh's daughters commandement upon her also so concerning Christ there was a commandement laid upon Christ to fulfill the Law for us yet he did it out of love It is disputed Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever the Arrians from the grant of this did inferre Christs absolute inferiority to the Father yet our orthodox Divines doe conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it Acts 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my
of Israel Yea if wee would speake exactly and strictly the bookes of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb. 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament hee doth not meane the writings or bookes but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant 2. In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not medle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore wee see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore wee have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinckled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that hee may establish them to be a people unto himselfe and that hee may be a God unto them Againe you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his waies And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plaine the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle calls it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the bookes and writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian calls the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Onely the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodoxe and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus That it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing onely as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secundary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistles and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousness of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but wee find this in effect Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the
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 God is more offended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospell light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifuga 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 waies Vse 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 Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens 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 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 concerne 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 Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory workes 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 downe 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 downe these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is There is in man a naturall power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing 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 owne 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 onely 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 its 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 turne 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 wee doe not bid the fire burne 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 This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance 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 been some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power of actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then meer 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 above said 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 deale of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in
obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses bind because of Moses so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament is binding so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Though indeed this be denyed by all those that are for the negative Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the observation therof was intended for the Church of God perpetually when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Lawes not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jewes So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes The Morall Law is binding 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it 1. In regard of the matter of it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and doe say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians doe professe they doe not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also doe not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speake not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there
is no matter saith Austin if that which be worshipped be the true object though it be worshipped divers wayes when appointed by him no more then when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages The fifth Argument If the Law by Moses doe not binde us then Argum. 5 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 explain 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 Commandements 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 doe 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 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 Arguments of the Antinomians whereby they would prove that the Law as given by Moses does not bind Christians examined and answered 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 belong to us because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt and say they further The temporall Promise to keep the Law doth not belong to us therefore Ephes chap. 6. 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandement with Promise he Argum. 1 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 and 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 Answer 1 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 plain 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 Answ 2 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 thinke it true Therefore in the third place I shall answer That there may be peculiar arguments that doe belong to the Jewes why they should keep the Commandements Answ 3 and there are generall ones that belong to all The generall arguments are I am the Lord thy God this belongs to us and then that peculiar argument may belong to them And this is no new thing to have a perpetuall duty pressed upon a people by some occasionall or peculiar motive Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God saith there by the Prophet that they shall no more say The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you see a speciall new argument may be brought for the generall duty And as for the particular temporall Promise I grant that did only belong to them but I deny the consequence that therefore the precept doth not for the Scripture useth divers arguments to the obedience of the same Command Davids Psalmes for the most part and some of Paul's Epistles as Philemon c. were written upon particular occasions yet the matter of them doth still belong to us The second Argument is that If the Law did oblige us as Argum. 2 given by Moses then it did the Gentiles and Heathens also and so the Heathens were bound to those Commandements as well as the Jewes but that is not so therefore Paul Rom. 2. speaketh of the Gentiles without this Law and as those that shall be judged without it Now this may be answered It doth not follow that the Answ Law by Moses must presently bind the Gentiles but when promulged and made known to them as at this time Infidels and Pagans are not bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ but if the doctrine of Christ were promulged to them they were then bound And I make no question but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moses his ministery to inquire after the true God and to worship him in the Jewish way so far as they could Thus we reade of the Eunuch coming up to Jerusalem to worship And certainly if a whole Nation had then been converted either they must have worshipped God according to their owne institution or God would have revealed unto them some different way of worshipping him from the Jewes or else they were bound so far as they could for the Ceremoniall worship bound them no otherwaies to worship God in the Jewish way then appointed by him The Law then given by Moses did bind Gentiles as it was made known to them Thus the stranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath though that be meant of a stranger that had received their religion yea Nehem. 13. 19. Nehemiah would not suffer the Tyrians that were strangers who did not submit to the Jewish Law to pollute the Sabbath Now to all this that hath been said you must take this limitation Though the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it yet in the obliging power of it it does That the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jewes as becoming the despensation of the Old Testament but yet the giving of the Law it selfe in the obliging power of it doth belong to us We all acknowledge that the Old Testament had a peculiar administration from the New it was fuller of terrour and so did gender more to bondage then the New Hence some
perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore hee is called a Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I dony that even under the Gospel that all sinnes 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 sinnes are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose wee pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meere declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification The forenamed Authour hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTURE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of workes Nay but by the law of faith WEe have confuted the false differences and now come to lay downe 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 The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall onely 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 its opposite Species but of the subject according to its severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of workes 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 onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousnesse unto the Jewes that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace and 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 Jewes did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacraments 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 Jewes and Gentiles did eye and looke 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 Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old of perspicuity and clearnesse 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 summe of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda speranda facienda Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved 1. It is so for the credenda 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 veile 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 2. For the speranda for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ onely 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 and the meeting of the Jewes called alwaies synagoge but never ecclesia doth suppose that the Jewes 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 abstaine 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 temporall and carnall yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins obseruation shewing that the Jewes should first be allured by temporall mercies and afterwards the Christians by spirituall As saith he first that which is animall and then that which is spirituall The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus wee may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animall was first and then that which is spirituall 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 wee see David making God his portion and professing that hee hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meere outward mercies These good things promised to the Jewes were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soule and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernell and the shell but the Jewes for the most part looked onely to the outward Hence Christ when hee opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernell to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now 3. For the facienda 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 morall things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and cleare 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
old Antinomians p. 267 The word As taken variously p. 157 Antidotes against Antinomian errors p. 269 Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace p. 271 B A Blaspheming Monk p. 25 Blaspheming Papists p. 26 The Lay-mans book is the whole universe p. 75 Master Burton his Report of Antinomians p. 268 C A Cordiall for a broken heart p. 21. 22 Contradictions of the Antinomians p. 30 A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature p. 81 Christs Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall p. 132 It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law p. 202 The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law ibid. God entred into Covenant with Adam in giving him a law p. 119. 120 What a Covenant implyes p. 121 Why the Covenane of grace is not still a covenant of workes seeing workes are necessary p. 46 A Covenant of Friendship p. 121 A Covenant of Reconciliation p. 121 No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man p. 122 How God can covenant with man p. 123 Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way rather then in an absolute way p. 124. 125 A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace p. 126 The morall law delivered as a covenant proved p. 220 It hath the reall properties of a covenant p. 221 In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace explained p. 222. 223 Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace p. 224 225 226 Objections answered p. 227 Doctor Crisp confuted p. 13. 14 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 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. 106. 107 Determination to one takes not away naturall liberty nor willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried unto p. 88 Three generall waies of proving the Deity of Christ p. 130 Foure differences not substantiall but accidentall betwixt the law and the Gospell p. 241 c. Five Differences betwixt the Law and Gospell strictly taken pag. 247. 248. 249 c. All Doctrine reduced to three heads credenda speranda facienda p. 242 E THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia and Synagoge confuted p. 242 If the Antinomians end were onely to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of workes to Justification it were more tolerable p. 30. but then their books and end were not reconciliable ibid. Other ends which might make the Antinomians more exousable p. 30. 31 How Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse p. 25. 257 End taken two waies p. 256 Four waies Christ is the perfective end of the Law p. 260. 261 Aquinas distinction of end p. 257 Endâ—xus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 75 Exhortations to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to doe them p. 69 Errours in Doctrine damnable p. 269 F FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers p. 2 How Faith justifies p. 42 Two acts of Faith ibid. Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel p. 252 The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature p. 70 Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first p. 117 Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency and shall be in heaven p. 125 Adams faith considered as an act of the soul not as an organ to lay hold on Christ p. 125 Finger of God p. 149 Finis indigentie assimilationis p. 44 Free-will by nature p. 82 Arguments for free-will answered p. 92. 93 G GEnealogies how usefull and how vaine page 2 How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law p. 57 Who are meant by the word Gentiles p. 56. 57 The Gospel and Law may be compared in a double respect p. 230 The word Gospel taken two waies ibid. Whether the Gospel be absolute or no. p. 249 Gospel taken strictly is not a doctrine of Repentance or holy workes p. 252 All Good morally is good theologically p. 58 Good workes how taken p. 37. 38 Foure things required to the effence of good workes p. 37. 38 The word Grace used sometimes for the effects of grace but more commonly for the favour of God p. 20 Grace is more then love ibid. Grace implyeth indebitum and demeritum of the contrary as Cameron observes p. 21 What grace the Pelagians acknowledge ibid. Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given to it p. 88 H A Two-fold writing of the law in the heart p. 58 The properties of holinesse fixed at first in Adams heart p. 116 Humiliation comes by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects page 253 I IMage and likenes signific one thing p. 111 An Image four-fold p. 111. 112 Wherein the Image of God in man consists page 112. 113. 114. 115 A Thing said to be immortal foure wayes p. 107. The Injudicionsnesse of the Antinomians pa. 30 Whether Adams immortality in innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 136. Some things just because God wills them other things are just and therefore God wills them pag. 4 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifies no more in itselfe then other acts of obedience p. 15 Expecting justification by the Law very dangerous Fifteen evils which follow thereupon mentioned pag. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26 I siebius Captaine of the Antinomians in Luthers daies p. 266 How the justification of the Gospel may stand with the good workes of the Law done by grace p. 37 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification page 42 K KIngdome of heaven not mentioned in all the O. T. p. 243 How Kingdome of heaven is taken in Mat. 5. 17. p. 264 L HOw the Law is good in eight respects p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Four acts of the Law p. 5 The two-fold use of the Law to the ungodly p. 7. A four-fold use of the Law to the godly p. 8. 9 Cautions concerning the Law p. 10 1. The word Law diversly taken ibid. p. 139. 216 2. The Law must not be separated from the spirit p. 11 3. To doe a command out of obedience to the Law and out of love are not opposite p. 12 4. Christs obedience to the Law exempts not us from obedience our selves unlesse it be in respect to those ends for which he obeyed pag. 13 5. The Law condemnes a beleevers sinne though not his person ibid. 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it p. 14 7 Distinguish betwixt what is