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
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
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
whether some of their Positions will not carry them neere such a dangerous rock For if the Law have nothing to doe with me in respect of the mandatory part of it then if I be troubled for the breach of it it is my weaknesse because I am not enough in Christ Use 2. Of Reproofe to those who live against this Law Sins that are against the Law of Nature do most terrifie How many live in such sins that the law of Nature condemneth Doth not Nature condemne lying couzening in your trades lusts and uncleannesse How many Trades-men are there that need not a Paul Even Tully in his Book of Offices will condemne their lying sophisticate wares and unlawfull gain It 's much how farre they saw this way Sinnes against naturall conscience are called Crying sinnes and though men have repented of them yet how long is it ere faith can still their cry Have not many Heathens been faithfull and just in their dealings It 's true that man hath not godlinesse who hath only naturall honesty therefore there are many spirituall sinnes that he never humbleth himself for as Paul saith he knew not the motions of his heart to be sinne Hence men are to be exhorted to get further light and more tendernesse then a naturall conscience can ever attain unto Neverthelesse if men so live as if they had not this Law in their hearts they are the more inexcusable Are there not men who call themselves Christians that yet the very Heathens will condemne at that great day Use 3. Why it is so hard to beleeve in the Lord Christ because here is nothing of nature in it it 's all supernaturall The Papists say we make an easie way to heaven for let a man be never so great a sinner yet if he doe but beleeve all is well Now the people of God sensible of their sin find nothing harder for it 's in the law of Nature they should not lye or steale but that they should beleeve in Christ for pardon when labouring under their offences here nature doth not help at all I acknowledge it 's a dispute among Divines Whether in that law implanted in Adams heart there was not also a power to beleeve in Christ when revealed But of that hereafter but the orthodox deny that he had explicite justifying faith for that was repugnant to the condition he was in But the thing I intend is to shew how supernaturall and hidden the way of beleeving is No marvell therefore if it be made such a peculiar work of the Spirit to convince of this sinne LECTURE VII ROM 2. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the Law doe by nature the things of the law c. THe Doctrine already gathered from these words is that The Gentiles have a law of Nature written in their hearts Which law doth consist partly in light and knowledge of speculative principles and partly in practice and obedience to practicall principles So then from hence we may consider first Of the light of Nature and then secondly Of the power of Nature and from both these we may have profitable matter and also may confute some dangerous errours which have poisoned too many I shall begin therefore with the light of Nature or Reason and shall endeavour to shew the Necessity of it and yet the Insufficiency of it It is not such a starre that can lead us to Christ In the first place take notice that this light of Nature may be considered in a three-fold respect First As it 's a relict or remnant of the image of God for howsoever the image of God did primarily consist in righteousness and true holinesse yet secondarily it did also comprehend the powers and faculties of the reasonable soule in the acts thereof And this later part abideth It is true this light of Nature comparatively to that of faith is but as a glow-worme to the Sun yet some light and irradiation it hath God when he made man had so excellently wrought his owne image in him that man could not fall unlesse that were also destroyed as they write of Phidias who made Alexanders statue yet had wrought his own picture so artificially in it that none could break Alexanders statue but he must also spoile Phidias his image who was the maker of it And thus it is in Adams fall yet there remaineth some light still which the Apostle calleth Rom. 1. Truth he vouchsafeth that name to it They detain the truth in unrighteousnesse Now this moon-light or glimmering of Nature is of a three-fold use 1. For societies and publike Common-wealths whereby they have made wholsome lawes It 's wonderfull to consider how excellent the Heathens have been therein Thus Chrysostome speaking how the most excellent men need the counsell of others instanceth in Jethro's advice to Moses about choosing assistant officers That great man Moses saith he who was so potent in words and workes who was the friend of God which commanded the creatures was helped incounsell by Jethro his father-in-law an obscure man and a Barbarian Although to speak the truth Jethro when he gave this counsell was not so but had the knowledge of the true God 2. This light of nature serveth for the instigation and provocation of men to many good actions and duties towards God and man Hence still observe that phrase They detain reason and naturall light is bound as a prisoner by the chaines of lusts and sinfull affections which thing Aristotle doth fully set forth in his incontinent person whom he describeth to have a right opinion in the generall about that which is good yet being too much affected to some particular pleasure or profit by that meanes the better part is over-born and therefore Aristotle saith the better part of the minde did provoke to better things This agreeth with that of Paul And as they bound captivated practicall truths towards man so they also imprisoned them about God Plato had the knowledge of one God yet he dared not to communicate it to the vulgar Therefore saith he Opificem universorum neque invenire facile neque inventum in vulgus promulgare tutum It was not easie to finde out the Maker of the world nor yet safe to make known to the people him when he was found out Here for feare of the people he detained this truth And Austin hath a most excellent chapter cap. 10. lib. 6. de Civit. to shew how Seneca kept the truth in unrighteousnesse he speaks of a Book Seneca wrote which now is lost against Superstitions where he doth most freely and boldly write against the practices of their worship but saith Austin He had liberty in his writing but not in his life Libertas affuit scribenti non viventi I will name some passages because they are applicable to Popish Idolatry as well as Paganish They dedicate their gods in most base materialls and call them gods which if taking life they should meet us on a sudden we
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
Dogs Hogs were such that despised justification living in their swinish lusts Dogs such who sought to be justified by their works He tels of one of their disciples that said Away with this scurvy sanctification and that there is no difference between godly here and in their state of glory but only in sense and apprehension Many other unsavory assertions are named by those Authors but these may suffice to give a tast of their opinions for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus in such falshoods as these are lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses We need not drink up the whole sea to tast whether the water be salt but as a statue that is made of clay yet outwardly so gilded that it seemeth to be gold if any man take a piece of it in his hand and discover what it is doth make every one know what the whole statue is so it is in this case For my my part I am acquainted with them no other waies but by their Books which they have written and in those every errour is more warily pressed then in secret There I finde that sometimes they yeeld the Law to be a rule of life yea they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists and if so their adversaries may be better called Antifidians And it cannot be denied but that in some parts of their Books there are wholsome and good passages as in a wood or forrest full of shrubs and brambles there may be some violets and primroses yet for all this in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs they must be forced to acknowledge it The Author of the Assertion of Free-grace who doth expresly touch upon these things and disclaimes the opinion against the Law pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow For first he makes no reall difference either in Scripture or use of words between the Law reigning and ruling so that if the Law rule a man it reigneth over him Now then they deny that the Law doth reign over a beleever and so do the Orthodox also therefore they must needs hold that it cannot be a rule unto him And then pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law or rule thereof he adds He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor of Newgate who wouldrob and kill if his Gaoler be not with him Again this is most clear by what he saith pag. 31. he refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law but not the damnatory he makes these things inseparable and as impossible for the Law to be a Law and have not both these as to take the brains and heart from a man and yet leave him a man still Now then seeing he denieth and so do all Protestant Writers that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law he must also deny he is under the mandatory because saith he this is inseperable I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion and the Authors thereof Luther calleth them Hostes Legis Organa Satanae he saith their doctrine is more to be taken heed of then that of the Papists for the Papists they teach a false or imperfect repentance but the Antinomians take all away from the Church Rivet cals them Furores Antinomorum In the first place awe thy heart with a feare against errours in doctrine as that which may damn thee as well as an open gross sin Consider that place Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very gross and do exclude from the Kingdome of Heaven and that he takes heresies there in a religious consideration is plain because it 's made to differ from seditions strifes and variances Neither do thou please thy self in that question What is heresie Tu Haereticus mihi ego tibi for the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evill doctrine and there the Apostle cals evill doctrine evill deeds 2. Look to all the places of Scripture as well as some only That is a perpetuall fault among the Antinomians they only pitch upon those places where Christ and his grace is spoken of but not of those Texts where duties are commanded especially those places of Scripture where the Law of God is wonderfully commended for the many reall benefits that come by it where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated Lex Dei in aeternum manet vel implenda in damnatis vel impleta in beatis The Law of God abideth alwaies either to be fulfilled in the damned or already fulfilled in those that are made happy said Luther What a curb would it be unto this errour if they would consider with what an holy passion zeal the Apostle doth deny that he destroyeth the Law making this very objection to himself Do we then make void the Law God forbid Now can we thing that the Apostle who in the third chapter to the Romans doth so vehemently deny that he destroyeth the Law should so much forget himself as in the fourth chapter to abolish it No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction 3. Do not affect applause among people as having found some new nigher way about Christ and grace then others have I have observed this itching humor in the Antinomian Sermons printed where they will call upon their hearers to mark it may be they shall heare that which they have not heard before when the thing is either false or if it be true is no more then ordinarily is taught by others But now when men desire to be applauded in the world they suggest to their inward disciples as if they had found out some new unheard thing and their followers broach it abroad and so they come to be exalted thus they do like Psaphon the Libyan It 's reported of him that he kept ten tame birds at home and taught them to sing Magnus deus Psaphon and when he had done so he let these birds flye into the woods and mountains where all the other birds learned the same song of them which the Libyans perceiving and thinking it no plot but a divine accident decreed to sacrifice to Psaphon and to put him in the number of their Gods 4. Do thou diligently study fundamentals and the principles of Religion As the childe groweth crooked for not being well looked to at first and many errours do now spread themselves because men are not well catechised They build without a foundation It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiasticall Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion It was a wise speech
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