and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which Argum. 6 God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and doe them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of workes God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the Promise together making the inheritance by one and not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong Objections made from those Objections impugning the former Arguments answered places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the Promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture doe urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas we reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sinne if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seeme to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all doe acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why doe you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministry of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as separated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTURE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously The words opened and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that self confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applied universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein And Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long and put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of workes meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees And he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speakes here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they doe Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning up his works and never naming the grace of God is a boaster by the Law of workes but the Publican that looketh upon himself only as a sinner and so judgeth himselfe he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they meane by workes here in the Text those The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. which goe before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foule errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We doe not come by works to faith but by faith to works But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God If you aske why works do imply boasting though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God The answer is ready because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us which yet is defective that is wholly to be given unto Christ The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words is That al Doctr. though the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some
Martyr that in causes and effects there is a kinde of circle one increasing the other As the clouds arise from the vapours then these fall down again and make vapours only you must acknowledge one first cause which had not its being from the other and this is the Spirit of God which at first did work faith The second errour is of the Papists that maketh this difference Errour 2 between the Law and the Gospel That the same thing is called the Law while it is without the Spirit and when it hath the Spirit it is called the Gospel This is to confound the Law and Gospel and bring in Justification by works The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards These rocks avoided we come to consider the place and first I Errour 3 may demand Whether any under the Old Testament were made partakers of Gods Spirit or no If they were how came they by it There can be no other way said but that God did give his Spirit in all those publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Israelites so that although they did in some measure obey the Law yet they did it not by the power of the Law but by the power of Grace Again in the next place which hath alwaies much prevailed with me did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time We constantly maintain against the Papists that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance Therefore in Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb they were made partakers of Christ as well as we yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace as any thing else Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture some other way is to be thought upon about the exposition of these words Some there are therefore that doe understand by the Spirit the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit for this was reserved till the times of the Messias and by these miracles his doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expresly and Beza doth confesse that this is the principall scope of the Apostle though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit And if this should be the meaning it were nothing to our purpose Again thus it may be explained as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith so by the works of the Law is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law which the false Apostles taught namely that Christ was not enough to justification unlesse the works of the Law were put in as a cause also And if this should be the sense of the Text then it was cleare that the Galathians were not made partakers of Gods Spirit by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their seducers but before while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ and therefore it was their folly having begun in the spirit to end in the flesh This may be a probable interpretation But that which I shall stand upon is this The Jewes and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ consider Rom. 2. 17 18 19. or when they went furthest they joyned Christ and the observance of the Morall Law equally together for justification and salvation whereas the Law separated from Christ did nothing but accuse and condemne not being able to help the soul at all Therefore it was a vain thing in them to hope for any such grace or benefit as they did by it So that the Apostles scope is not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law which David and Moses did so much commend but against it in the sense as the Jewes did commonly doat upon it which was to have justification by it alone or at the best when they put the Law and Christ together Now both these we disclaime either that God doth use the Law for our justification or that of it self it is able to stirre up the least godly affection in us More places of Scripture are brought against this but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant Thus therefore I shall conclude this point acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodoxe men speak otherwise and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question but as yet that which I have delivered carrieth the more probability with me and I will give one text more which I have not yet mentioned and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moses is said to receive that he might give the Israelites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lively Oracles that is not verba vitae but verba viva vivificantia so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving life not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them but when we by grace are inabled to obey them God out of his mercy bestoweth eternall life Let me also adde this that I the rather incline to this opinion because I see the Socinians urging these places or the like where justification and faith is said to be by Christ and the Gospel that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see that these priviledges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant whereas it is plain that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David who lived under the Law as a schoole-master for the same kinde of justification as ours is And thus I come to another Question which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us and from whence they have their name and that is the abrogation of the Morall Law And howsoever I have already delivered many things that doe confirme the perpetuall obligation of it yet I did it not then so directly and professedly as now I shall The Text I have chosen being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon I will therefore open The Text opened the words and proceed as time shall suffer The Apostle Paul having laid down in verses preceding the nature of justification so exactly that we may finde all the causes efficient meritorious formall instrumentall and finall described as also the consequent of this truth which is the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what we doe he draweth a conclusion or inference ver 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively A man is justified by faith the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all equivalent with the Apostle And then to prevent all errours and cavils he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works And this proposition he doth extend to the Jewes and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God
a great part of it they make it commonitory and not obligatory and the power of man they make to be the rule of his duty whereas it is plaine by Scripture that that measure of grace which God giveth any man upon earth is not answerable to the duty commanded there It is true Hierome said It was blasphemy to say God commanded any thing impossible but in this sense impossible absolutely so that man could never have fulfilled it 5. When they doe oppose it to Christ. And this was the Jewes 5. When they oppose it to Christ fundamentall errour and under this notion doth the Apostle argue against it in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians And howsoever they would have compounded Christ and the Law together yet this composition was to make opposition There can be no more two Suns in the firmament then two things to justifie Therefore the reconciliation of the Law and Christ cannot be in matter of justification by way of mixture but yet one is antecedaneous and subordinate to the other and is no more to be opposed then the end to the meanes Nor is it any wonder that the Law through errour may be opposed to Christ seeing that Christ may be opposed to Christ as in Popery Christ sanctifying is opposed to Christ justifying for when we charge them with derogating from Christ in holding our graces doe justifie Nay say they we set him up more then you for we hold He doth make us holy That this holinesse doth justifie Thus you see Christ in his works is opposed to Christ in his justifying And here by the way you may see that that onely is the best way of advancing Christ or grace which is in a Scripture way and not what is possible for us to think as the Papists doe 6. When they look for justification by it and this is a dangerous 6. When they expect justification by it and desperate errour this is that which reigneth in Popery this is that inbred canker-worme that eateth in the hearts of all naturally They know not a Gospel-righteousnesse and for this end they reade the Law they heare it preached onely that they may be selfe-saviours And certainly for this two-fold end I may think God suffers this Antinomian errour to grow first That Ministers may humble themselves they have not set forth Christ and grace in all the glory of it If Bernard said he did not love to reade Tully because he could not reade the Name of Christ there how much rather may we say that in many Sermons in many a mans ministery the drift and end of all his preaching is not that Christ may be advanced And in Christians in Protestants it is a farre greater sin then in Papists for it is well observed by Peter Martyr that the Apostle doth deale more mildly in the Epistle to the Romans then in the Epistle to the Galatians and the reason is because the Galatians were at first well instructed in the matter of justification but afterwards did mixe other things with Christ therefore he thunders against them I desire to know nothing saith Paul 1 Corinth 2. but Jesus Christ and him crucified And secondly another end may be to have these truths beaten out more As The deity of Christ because of the Arrians and Grace in predestination and conversion by the Pelagians so The grace of justification because not onely of Papists but Antinomians And certainly these things were much pressed by Luther at first as appeares in his Epistle to the Galatians but perceiving how this good doctrine was abused he speaks in his Commentary on Genesis which was one of his last workes much against Antinomists But yet because generally people are fallen into a formality of truthes it 's good to set up Christ And the poyson of this opinion will be seen in these things 1. It overthroweth the nature of grace And this holdeth against 1. Justification by the Law overthrowes the nature of grace the workes of the Gospel as well as those of the Law Take notice of this that justification by workes doth not onely exclude the workes of the Law but all workes of the Gospel yea and the workes of grace also Hence you see the opposition is of works and of grace Here the Apostle makes an immediate opposition whereas the Papist would say Paul hath a non sequitur for datur tertium workes of and by grace But workes doe therefore oppose grace because the frequent acception of it in the Scripture is for the favour of God without us not any thing in us I will not deny but that the word grace is used for the effects of it inherent holinesse wrought in us as in that place Grow in grace and knowledge but yet commonly grace is used for the favour of God And the ignorance of the use of the word in Scripture makes them so extoll inherent holinesse as if that were the grace which should save us As saith the Papist a bird cannot fly without wings the fish swimme without scales the Sculler without his oare cannot get to the haven so without this grace wee cannot fly into heaven and that as the meritorius cause But this is ignorance of the word grace and so the troubles and unbeliefe of the godly heart because it is not so holy as it would be cometh from the mistake of the word grace I shall anticipate my selfe in another subject if I should tell you how comprehensive this word is implying no merit or causality on our part for acceptance but the cleane contrary and therefore for God to deale with us in grace is more then in love for Adam if he had continued righteous he had been partaker of life this had been the gift of God but not by the grace of God as it is strictly taken for Adam was not in a contrary condition to life I will not trouble you with Pareus his apprehension that thinketh Adams righteousnesse could not be called grace therefore reproveth Bellarmine for his title De gratia primi hominis neither will hee acknowledge those habits of holinesse in Christ to be called grace because there was not a contrary disposition in his nature to it as it is in ours And this also Cameron presseth that besides the indebitum which grace implyeth in every subject there is also a demeritum of the contrary Thus then justification is of grace because thy holinesse doth not onely not deserve this but the cleane contrary Now what a cordiall may this be to the broken heart exercised with its sinnes How may the sicke say There I finde health the poore say There I finde riches And as for the Papists who say they set up grace and they acknowledge grace yet first it must be set downe in what sense wee take grace It is not every man that talketh of grace doth therefore set up Scripture-grace Who knoweth not that the Pelagians set up grace They determined that whosoever did not
the glorious image of God put into us for of the later as it is informed by Scripture it is no question Now this is absolutely necessary two waies 1. As a passive qualification of the subject for faith for there cannot be faith in a stone or in a beast no more then there can be sin in them Therefore Reason or the light of Nature makes man in a passive capacity fit for grace although hee hath no active ability for it And when he is compared to a stone it is not in the former sense but the later And secondly it 's necessary by way of an instrument for we cannot beleeve unlesse we understand whether knowledge be an act ingredient into the essence of faith or whether it be prerequisite all hold there must be an act of the understanding one way or other going to beleeve Hence knowledge is put for faith and Hebr. 11. By saith we understand Thus it is necessary as an instrument 3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth crosse the truth of Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none doe crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Nature as it 's the remnant of Gods image This indeed is hard to cleere in many points of Divinity as in the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christs Incarnation which seemeth paradoxall to Reason of whom Tertullian lib. 5. de carne Christi cap. 5. thus Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum est Mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus credibile est quia ineptum Sepultus resurrexit certum est quia impossibile Yet seeing the Apostle calls the naturall knowledge of a man Truth and all truth is from God which waies soever it come there can therefore be no contradiction between it And hereupon our Divines doe when they have confuted the Poposh doctrine of Transubstantiation by Scripture shew also that for a body to be in two places is against the principles of Nature They indeed call for faith in this point and Lapide upon these words Hoc est corpus meum saith If Christ should aske me at the day of judgment Why did you beleeve the bread to be the body of Christ I will answer This text if I be deceived These words have deceived me But we must compare place with place and Scripture with Scripture As for the doctrine of the Trinity though it be above Reason and we cannot look into that mysterie no more then an Owle can into the Sun Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies beames yet it is not against it 4. The same object may be knowne by the light of Nature and by the light of Faith This may easily be understood I may know there is a God by the light of Nature and I may beleeve it because the Scripture faith so so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made and by arguments know it was made and this is called faith by James The divels beleeve that is they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God and feel it by experience not that they have faith for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God and hath accompanying it pia affectio to him that speaketh as the first truth Faith therefore and the light of Nature goe to the knowledge of the same thing different waies faith doth because of the testimony and divine revelation of God the light of Nature doth because of arguments in the thing it selfe by discourse And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding but its simple and apprehensive 5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary yet it is not The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith a Judge in matters of faith The Lutheran seemeth to depresse Reason too much and the Socinian exalteth it too high They make it not onely an instrument but a Judge and thereupon they reject the greatest mysteries of Religion I know some have endeavoured to shew that Religio est summa ratio and there are excellent men that have proved the truth of the Christian Religion by Reason and certainly if we can by Reason prove there is any Religion at all we may by the same Reason prove that the Christian Religion is the true one But who doth not see how uncertaine Reason is in comparison of Faith I doe not therefore like that assertion of one who affects to be a great Rationalist it is Chillingworth that saith We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we have the greatest Reason that this is the Word of God But we must not confound the instrument and the Judge holy truthes they are Scripture truthes though hammered out by Reason As the Smith that takes golden plate and beates it into what shape he pleaseth his hammer doth not make it gold but onely gold of such a shape And thus also Reason doth not make a truth divine onely holds it forth and declareth it in such a way 6. It s altogether insufficient to prescribe or set downe any worship of Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship God Hence God doth so often forbid us to walk after our owne imaginations and to doe that which we shall choose The Apostle calleth it Will-worship when a mans Will is the meere cause of it Now its true men are more apt to admire this as we see in the Pharisees and Papists they dote upon their Traditions more then Gods Institutions Hence Raymundus a Papist speaking of the Masse It is saith he as full of mysteries as the sea is full of drops of water as the heaven hath Angels as the firmament hath starres and the earth little crummes of sand But what saith our Saviour Luk. 18. that which is highly esteemed before men is abomination before God That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to idols and false-worship It s true indeed even in worship light of Nature and prudence is instrumentally required to order the Institutions of God but as Reason may not make a new Article of Faith so neither a new part of worship Now Natures in sufficiency is described in these three reasonings 1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye It 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eie was well called by Parisiensis a madness in some who doubted not to say The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then by the Scriptures The people of Israel would have sensible gods that they might see them and certainly men doe as much delight in sensible pompous worship as children doe in gay babies therefore the Prophet speaketh of their goodly images But all this ariseth because they are ignorant of spirituall worship and cannot tell how to make spirituall advantage from God
then the sins of our immediate parents are made ours I know Peter Martyr and hee quoteth Bucer is of a mind that the sins of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity and Austin inclineth much to that way but this may serve to confute it that the Apostle Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one mans disobedience Now if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was why should the accusation be still laid upon him But of this more hereafter 6. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eate of Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also the forbidden fruit We need not run to the answer of some that this was spoken onely by way of threatning and not positively as that sentence upon the Ninivites for these conclude therefore Adam died not because of his repentance but Adam did not immediately repent and when he did yet for all that he died Others reade it thus In the day thou eatest thereof and then make the words absolute that follow Thou shalt die as if God had said There is no day excepted from thy death when thou shalt eate But the common answer is best which takes to dye for to be in the state of death and therefore Symmachus his translation is commended which hath Thou shalt be mortall so that hereby is implyed a condition and a change of Adams state as soon as he should eate this forbidden fruit And by death we are not onely to meane that of the actuall dissolution of soule and body but all diseases and paines that are the harbingers of it So that hereby Christians are to be raised higher to be more Eagle-eyed then Philosophers They spake of death and diseases as tributes to be paid they complained of Nature as a step-mother but they were not able to see sin the cause of this Yea in this threatning we are to understand spirituall death and eternall also Indeed it 's made a question Whether if Adam had continued he should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in Paradise but that his death would have been more then temporall appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed the things that concerne heaven and hell or the resurrection are not so frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New yet there are sufficient places to convince that the promises and threatnings in the Old Testament were not onely temporall as some doe most erroneously maintaine 7. Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden Adam before his sin was immortall fruit And this indeed is a very famous question but I shall not be large in it The orthodox they hold that immortality was a priviledge of innocency and that Adams body then onely became mortall when his soule was made sinfull This is vehemently opposed by Papists and by Socinians now they both agree that man should not actually have dyed but for sin only they say he was mortall as the Socinians or immortall by a meere supernaturall gift of God But a thing may be said to be immortall severall waies as the Learned observe 1. From an absolute A thing may be said to be immortall foure waies necessity either inward or outward in this sense God onely is said to be immortall 2. When there is no inward materiall cause of dissolution though outwardly it may be destroyed and thus are Angels and the soules of men 3. A thing may be said to be immortall by some speciall gift and appointment of God as the bodies glorified and as some say the heavens and maine parts of the world shall have onely a qualitative alteration not a substantiall abolition 4. That is immortall which hath no propensity to death yet such a condition being put it will die and thus Adam was therefore in some sense he may be said mortall in another immortall But because he is commonly called mortall that is obnoxious to death therefore we say Adam before his sin was immortall and this is abundantly confirmed by this sentence of commination And therefore though Adam would have eaten and drunk though his body was elementary and the originall of it dust though he would have begotten children yet none of these can prove him mortall because the righteousnesse in his soule would have preserved the fit temperament of his body especially having Gods promise made to his obedience 8. Whether upon this threatning Thou shalt die can be fixed The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soule as well as body Of all the errours that have risen up there is none more horrid in nature and more monstrous in falshood then this so that if it could be true of any mans soule that it was not an immateriall substance but onely a quality of the temperament it would be true of the Authour of that Book which seemeth to have little sense and apprehension of the divine authority in the Scriptures concerning this matter What an horrid falshood is it to call the doctrine of the immortall soule an hell-hatched doctrine But certainly you would think for a man to dare to broach such an opinion he must have places of Scripture as visible as the Sun But this Text is his Achilles and all the rest shrowd under this from which he frames his first and chiefest argument thus What of Adam was immortall through innocency was to be mortaliz'd by transgression But whole Adam was in innocency immortall Therefore all and every part even whole man was lyable to death by sin But what Logician doth not see a great deale more foisted into the Conclusion then was in the Premises Whole Adam was to be mortaliz'd therefore all and every part What a non sequitur is here That is true of the whole as it is the whole which is not true of every part If I should say Whole Christ dyed for death is of the concrete the person therefore all and every part of Christ dyed therefore his divine nature dyed this would be a strange inference yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built Man is said to be mortall whole man dieth therefore every part of man dieth There is difference between totum and totalitas the whole and every part of that whole It 's true death doth bring the compositum the person to a non-entity but not every part of that compositum to a non-entity Besides that which was immortall is mortalized according to their natures the soule dieth a spirituall and an eternall death But see how the Divell carries this man further and sets him upon the pinacle of errour and bids him throw himselfe head-long because he doth evidently say that if the soules were destroyed as well as the bodies then there
restored againe to this image of God is a great and rare blessing few partake of it Holinesse must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee as ever sin and corruption hath soaked into thee Thou didst drink iniquity like water doest thou now as the Hart pant after the water-brooks The resurrection of the soule must be in this life It was sinfull proud but it 's raised an holy humble soule LECTURE XV. EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. HAving handled the Law given to Adam in innocency both absolutely as it is a Law and relatively as a Covenant we now proceed to speak of that Law given by God through the ministery of Moses to the people of Israel which is the great subject in controversie between the Antinomians and us There were indeed Precepts and Lawes given before Moses Hence the Learned speak much of Noah's Precepts The Talmudists say as Cuneus relates that these seven Precepts of Noah did containe such an exact rule of righteousnesse that whosoever did not know them the Israelites were commanded to kill But because these are impertinent to my scope I passe them by And in the handling of this Law of Moses I will use my former method considering the Law absolutely in it selfe and then relatively as a Covenant for as God you have heard hath suffered other errours about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and the Grace of God therefore to break forth that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever by those opinions which would overthrow it The Text upon which most of the matter I have to say shall be grounded are the words now read unto you that are an introduction to the Law containing briefly 1. The nature of the matter delivered which is called Words 1. What meant by words so Deut. 4. ten words hence it 's called the Decalogue Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word meerly as we say one word for so the ten Commandements are more then ten words but it signifieth a concise and briefe sentence by way of command Hence it 's translated sometimes by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. 19. and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 118. 57. so in the New Testament that which is called by Mark 7. 13. the word of God is by Matthew named the commandement of God So Paul also Galat. 5. 14. The whole Law is fulfilled in one word that is one briefe sentence by way of command 2. You have the note of universality All these words to shew 2. Nothing to be added or taken from them that nothing may be added to them or diminished onely here is a difficulty for Deut. 5. where these things are repeated againe by Moses there some things are transposed and some words are changed But this may be answered easily that the Scripture doth frequently use a liberty in changing of words when it repeateth the same thing onely it doth not alter the sense And happily this may be to confute that superstitious opinion of the Jewes who are ready to dreame of miraculous mysteries in every letter 3. There is the efficient cause of this in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. God the Author of this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used in the plurall as some of the Learned observe defectively and is to be supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the excellency of God as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for excellentissima fera By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because saith a learned man they interpreting this for the Grecians and the wisemen amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they would use a word to shew that he who gave the Law was Lord even over all those Now God is here described to be the authour of these Lawes that so the greater authority may be procured to them Hence all Law-givers have endeavoured to perswade the people that they had their Lawes from God 4. You have the manner of delivering them God spake them 4. The manner of delivering it saying which is not to be understood as if God were a body and had organs of speaking but onely that he formed a voice in the aire Now here ariseth a great difficulty because of Acts 7. where he that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angell This maketh the Papists and Grotius goe upon a dangerous foundation That God did not immediately deliver the Law but an Angell who is therefore called God and assumes unto himselfe the name Jehovah because he did represent the person of God But this is confuted by the Learned I shall not preface any further but raise this Doctrine That God delivered a Law to Doctr. the people of Israel by the hand or ministry of Moses I shall God willing handle this point doctrinally in all the theologicall considerations about the Law and First you must still remember that the word Law may be used The word Law is capable of diverse senses and significations in divers senses and before this or that be asserted of it you must cleare in what sense you speak of the Law Not to trouble you againe with the severall acceptions of the word which you must have alwaies in your eye take notice at the present of what a large or restrained signification the word Law is capable of for we may either take the word Law for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the Commandements Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Or else more strictly for that part which we call the Morall Law yet with the preface and promises added to it and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace which is to be proved in due time Or else most strictly for that which is meere mandative and preceptive without any promise at all And in this sense most of those assertions which the Learned have concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel are to be understood for if you take as for the most part they do all the precepts and threatnings scattered up and downe in the Scripture to be properly the Law and then all the gracious promises wheresoever they are to be the Gospel then it 's no marvell if the Law have many hard expressions cast upon it Now this shall be handled on purpose in a distinct question by it selfe because I see many excellent men peremptory for this difference but I much question whether it will hold or no. 2. What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is and what kinds of Of the division of Lawes in generall and why the Morall so called lawes there
of Christ all this while I answer That is false as is to be proved if the Law be not taken very strictly And besides the Law and the Gospel are not to be severed but they mutually put a fresh relish and taste upon each other And shall no mercy be esteemed but what is the Gospel Thou art thankfull for temporall mercies and yet they are not the Gospel but this is a spirituall mercy LECTURE XVI EXOD. 20. 1. God spake these words saying c. I Have already begun the discourse about the Morall Law and shall at this time consider those historicall passages which we meet with in the promulgation of it that so the excellency of it may hereby be more knowne for whosoever shall diligently observe all the circumstances of the history of the Law he shall find that God did put glory upon it and howsoever the Apostle Hebr. 12. and 2 Corinth 3. doth preferre the Gospel above this ministration of Moses yet absolutely in it selfe it was greatly honoured by God In the generall therefore you may take notice that therefore did God so solemnly and with great majesty 1. The Law was given with great majesty thereby to procure the greater authority to it give the Law that so the greater authority may thereby be procured to it Hence it is related of many Heathens that they have feigned some familiarity with their gods when they made their lawes that so the people might with greater awe and reverence receive them Thus Numa feigned his discourse with the goddesse Aegâ—ria for his lawes and it 's related of Pythagoras that he had a tamed Eagle which he would cause to come flying to him to make people think his sentences were delivered from heaven to him If lawes of men might well be called by Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much rather this Law of God It 's but a conceit of Prospers that Judaei were so called because they received Jus Dei the Law of God It 's further also to be observed in the generall that God hath alwaies had apparitions sutable to the matter in hand Thus hee appeared in a burning bush to Moses like an armed man to Jusua and with all signes of majesty and a great God being to deliver lawes to the people that they might see how potent he was to be avenged for every breach Againe in the next place take also this generall Observation That although the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes were given There is a difference between the Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Law notwithstanding they were given at the same time at the same time with the Morall Law yet there is a difference between them And this is to be taken notice of lest any should think what will this discourse make for the honour of the Morall Law more then the other lawes It 's true these three kinds of lawes agree in the common efficient cause which was God and in the minister or mediatour which was Moses in the subject which was the people of Israel and all and every one of them as also in the common effects of binding and obliging them to obedience and to punish the bold offenders against them But herein the Morall Law is preheminent 1. In that it The Morall Law more excellent them the Judiciall and Ceremoniall in three respects is a foundation of the other lawes and they are reduceable to it 2. This was to abide alwaies not the other 3. This was immediately written by God and commanded to be kept in the Ark which the other were not Lastly observe these two things in the generall about the God humbled the Israelites before he gave them his Law time of the delivery of the Law First God did not give them his Law till he had deeply humbled them and it may be now Christ will not settle his ordinances with us till he hath brought us low And secondly Before they come unto the Land of promise God God settled his worship before he gave them Canaan settleth his worship and lawes When he hath done this then he bids them Deut. 2. 1. Goe towards Canaan This sheweth A people cannot have Canaan till the things of God be settled But we come to the remarkable parts of the history of the promulgation of this Law and first you may consider the great and diligent preparation of the people to heare it Exod. 1. 9. for Preparation required before the hearing of the Law first They were to sanctifie themselves and to wash their clothes This indeed was peculiar unto those times yet God did thereby require the cleansing and sanctification of their hearts The superstitious 1. The people must sanctifie themselves imitating of this was among the Gentiles who used to wash that they may goe to sacrifice Plaut in Aulul Act. 3. scen 6. yea this superstition was brought into the Church Chrysost Hom. 52. in Mat. We see saith he this custome confirmed in many Churches that many study diligently how they may come to Church with their hands washt and white garments And Tert. cap. 11. de Orat. Hae sunt vera mundiciae non quas plerique superstitiosè curant ad omnem orationem etiam cum lavacro totius corporis aquam sumentes but this by the way God did hereby signifie what purity and holinesse of heart should be in them to receive his Law The second thing requisite was to set bounds so that none 2. They must not touch the Mount might touch the Mount It 's a violent perverting of Scripture which the popish Canons have applying this allegorically to a lay-man if he reade or medle with the Scripture whereas not only a beast but not the Priests themselves should touch this mountain and hereby God would have men keep within their bounds and not to be too curious The Doctrine of the Trinity of Predestination are such a mountain that a man must keep at the bottome of it and not climb up The third thing was not to come at their wives Some do referre 3. Nor come at their wives this to those women that were legally polluted but it may be well understood of their conjugall abstinence not as a thing sinfull but that hereby God would have them put off not only affections to all sinnes but all lawfull things so that this preparation for three dayes doth make much for the excellency of the Law and sheweth how spirituall we should be in the receiving of it 2. The Declaration of Majesty and greatnesse upon the delivery 2. The Law was given with great Majesty that so the people might be raised up to reverence the Law-giver of it For although it must be granted that this was an accommodated way to the Law that did convince of sinne and terrifie hence the Apostle Heb. 12. 18 19 c. preferreth the ministration of the Gospel above it yet this also was a true cause why thundrings and terrours did accompany the promulgation of
he saith The promise or the Gospel and not the Law is the seed or doctrine of our new birth Assert of grace page 163. Now here are ambiguites as first the promise or Gospel for by this hee seemeth to decide a great Question that whatsoever is a promise in the Scripture that belongs to the Gospel and whatsoever is not that but a command or threatning that belongs to the Law whereas this needeth a great discussion 2. The state of the Question is not about the Gospel or the Law as they are both a doctrine in the Scripture but about the Spirit of God working by one or the other and the not attending to this makes the arguments so confounded 3. Hee saith it 's not the seed of the new birth whereas conversion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart and Mat. 13. The Word of God in generall is compared to seed sowen that brings forth different fruit as was said before but to let this passe The first instance that is brought cometh from John 17. v. 17. Instance 1 Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is truth Where saith the Authour to sanctifie is to separate any thing from a common use and to consecrate it to God and applied here to man includeth two things 1. Justification by the communication of Christs perfect holinesse whereby the beleever is presented holy and without blame to God 2. An inward renewing and changeing purifying the heart and life by degrees c. pag. 165. I answer 1. The word sanctifie when applied to men doth Answer 1 not onely signifie justification or renovation but setting a part to some peculiar office and charge and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Christs prayer here That as the Priests and Levites who were to enter into the sanctuary did first wash their hands and feet being also cloathed with goodly garments so the Apostles are here prayed for by our Saviour that they may be fitted for their great charge And thus Chrysostome you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5. Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations And this exposition is confirmed by the manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in truth so they reade it and mention not the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not in some copies so that they take it as an expression opposing the sanctification of the Priests which was by legall types and shadowes But that which doth especially confirme this exposition seemeth to be the two verses following As thou hast sent mee into the world so have I also sent them into the world and for their sakes I sanctifie my selfe that they also may be sanctified through the truth Now sanctification as it comprehends justification and renovation cannot be applied to Christ but it must signifie the segregating and setting apart himselfe for the office of the Mediatour Besides if sanctification doe here include justification how by the Antinomian principle can our Saviour pray for the justification of those who are already justified But in the next place grant that interpretation of sanctification Answer 2 for renovation how doth this prove that the Law is not used instrumentally For our Saviours argument is universall thy word is truth And may not this be affirmed of the Law as well as the Gospel Doth not David speaking of the Law call it pure and cleane that is true having no falshood in it Yea it is thought probable by a learned man that this speech of our Saviours is taken out of Psal 119. 142. where are these words Gerbard expresly Thy Law is the truth Where the word Law cannot exclude the Morall Law though it may include more The next instance is Tit. 2. ver 11 12. For the grace of God that Instance 2 bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodlinesse and wordly lusts c. I answer All this may be granted and nothing makes against Answ this opinion for none deny the Gospel to be the instrument of holinesse But is not here a contradiction The Author before made the Gospel and a Promise all one whereas here it doth command holinesse and godlinesse Is not this with the Papists to make the Gospel a new Law Let him reconcile himself In the next place he doth ambiguously put into the argument the word effectually which is not in the Text for although God doth by his grace in the Gospel effectually move those that are elected to Godlinesse yet Scripture and experience sheweth that where the grace of the Gospel hath appeared thus teaching men yet all are not effectually turned unto holinesse from their worldly lusts Besides the argument may be retorted upon him What word teacheth to deny all ungodlinesse that sanctifieth instructeth but the Law doth so insomuch that the Psalmist saith Psal 119. A young man whose lusts are strongest and temptations most violent may be cleansed by attending thereunto only you must alwayes take notice of the preheminency of the Gospel above the Law for the Law could never have any such good effect upon the heart of man were it not for the gracious Promise by Christ Therefore all the godly men in the Old Testament that received benefit by the Morall Law in studying of it and meditating upon it did depend upon the Gospel or the grace of God in Christ as appeareth by David praying so often to be quickned by Gods Law And here by the way let me take notice of a remarkable passage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. ver 14. where speaking of the great commendation the Psalmist gives the Law of God that it converts the soul and we may adde those places of inlightning the minde that they clense a mans way c. he maketh this Question Whether the Law doth ever obtain such effects or no And he answereth affirmatively that it doth but then when it s written not in tables but in the hearts and bowels of men so that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth use the Law instrumentally so that he writeth it in our hearts And this is all we so contend for A third and last instance out of Scripture in answering of Instance 3 which all is answered is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by Answ the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith that is of the Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal. 3. 2. Gospel the doctrine of faith In the opening of this text we must take heed of three errours First of those who hold we have faith first before we have the Spirit for how can we come Errour 1 to have faith by our own reason and will This were to make it no work of God The Apostle therefore certainly speakes of the increase of the graces of the Spirit for it is well observed by Peter
conversion p. 127 What the word Sanctifie implies p. 194. 195 How the Jewes were in more servitude then Christians p. 245 Sins outward which are majoris infamiae inward which are majoris reatus page 171 Sincerity taken two waies p. 255 Socinians and Papists make additions in the Gospel besides what was in the Law p. 233 Why the shell-fish was unclean to the Jewes p. 2 Law called spirituall in a two-fold sense 1. effectiâ—â— 2. formaliter p. 6 How the state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity p. 133. 134 The state of reparation excells the state of innocency in certainty of perseverance ibidem Eudoxus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 75 Summe of all heavenly doctrine reduced to three heads credenda speranda facienda pag. 242 Symbolicall precept p. 101 T TEaching nova novè p. 2 Tully said that the Law of the twelve Tables did exceed all the libraries of Philosophers both in weight of authority and fruitfulnesse of matter p. 3 The threatnings of the Gospel against those who reject Christ arise from the Law joyned in practicall use with the Gospel p. 252 Tree of knowledge 102. 103 Whether the Tree of life was a Sacrament of Christ to Adam or no. p. 130 No truth in Divinity doth crosse the truth of nature p. 70 Doctor Tayler his Report of Antinomianisme p. 268 V THe reason of the variety of Gods administrations in the two T. p. 246 A two-fold unbeliefe Negative which damnes none Positive which damnes many p. 78 Vnbelief a sinne against the Law as well as against the Gospel How God justifies the ungodly p. 34. 35 W MInisters ought to be wary so to set out grace as not to give just exceptions to the Papists and so to defend holy workes as not to give the Antinomians cause of insultation p. 28. 29 Warre lawfull under the Gospel p. 183 Will serious and efficacious the distinction examined p. 105 How the Word in generall is the instrument of conversion p. 188. 189. Two Rules about it proved p. 190 Word how used p. 138 Workes denied by the Antinomians to be away to hoâ—ven p. 31 There have been dangerous assertions concerning workes even by those who were no Antinomians out of a great zeal for the grace of God against Papists p. 29 The presence of good workes in the person justified denied by the Antinomians p. 32. They deny any gaine or losse to come by them No peace of conscience comes by doing good workes nor lost by omitting them p. 33. which is confuted ibid. They deny good works to be signes or testimonies of grace ibidâ—â— Confuted page 34 Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good works p. 37 The Antinomian erreth two contrary waies about good works p. 38 Distinction betwixt saying that good works are necessary to justifieâ— pâ—rsons and that they are necessary to justification p. 39 Good works necessary upon 13. grounds p. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45 A Table of divers Texts of Scripture which are opened or vindicated by this TREATISE Genesis Chap. Ver. Page 1 25 110. 111 2 17 119 Exodus 21 1 138 34 â—7 28 153 Leviticus 6 2. 3 236 16 16 237 Numbers 13 23 207 Deuteronomy 4 13 â—19 30 11 94 32  32 33 3 149 1 Samuel 4 17 230 2 Samuel 1 10 230 1 Kings â— 9 154 2 Kings 20 3 44 Psalme 1. 19. 119  8 68 18 36 50 2 49 Isaiah 6â— 1 238 Jeremiah 16 14. 15 114 50 20 234 Ezekiel 1â— Â 234 Daâ—let 9 14 234 Zechary 13 1 234 Matthew 5â— 17 45. 263  21. 22 166 7 17 32  12 80 12 28 149 Marke 13 7 255 16 15 231 Luke 11 20 149 16 16 214 John 1 9 76 8 7 182 14 31 12 15 10 17 19 194 Acts. 7 37 12  38 199 Romans 1 18 66  19 74 2 14. 15 56  27 255 3 27 228  31 193. 199 4 5 34  14 227 5 1 22  6. 8. 10 35 6 1â— 215 7 1. 2 218  6 205   8 per â—atum 8 11 37  13 33  29. 30 35 13 12 42 12 1 43 14 22 271 1 Corinthians 2 14 64 7 37 82 9 20 217 15 10 92 2 Corinthians 3 7 257 3 11 202 6 16 37 Galat. 3 2 19â— Â 18 214  23 14  23. 24 259 4 24 1â—9 5 23 53 5 5. 4. 13. 14 212 5 20 269 Ephesians 1 10 137. 131 2 14 202  15 203 3 12  6 2 163  14. 16 41 Philippians 3 9 210 1 Thessalonians 2 16 â—55 1 Timothy 1 8. 9 9 1 9 47 4 8 40 7 5 255 2 Timothy 4 8 40 Titus 2 11. 12 196  14 39 Hebrewes 6 18 209 9 4 155  7 237  13. 14 235 10 17 234 11 16 243 12 5. 6. 7. 8 235  ult 33 Jam. 2 8 255 1 Peter 3 1 45 2 Peter 1 10 41  19 242 â— 2. 15. 21 32 FINIS