diligent and the rather which is spoken ex abundanti to make their calling and election sure What God doth in time or what he hath decreed from eternity to us in love to make sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Estius and other Papists strive for firme and not sure and so indeed the word is sometimes used but here the Apostle speaketh not of what it is in it selfe but what it is to us and the certainty thereof And observe the Apostles motives for making our election sure 1. Ye shall never faile the word is used sometimes of grievous and sometimes of lesser sins but here hee meaneth such a failing that a man shall not recover again 2. An entrance shall be abundantly ministred into heaven It 's true these are not testimonies without the Spirit of God 5. They are a condition without which a man cannot be saved So that although a man cannot by the presence of them gather a cause of his salvation yet by the absence of them he may conclude his damnation so that it is an inexcusable speech of the Antinomian Good works doe not profit us nor bad hinder us thus Islebius Now the Scripture how full is it to the contrary Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh ye shall dye So Except yee repent yee shall all likewise perish Such places are so frequent that it 's a wonder an Antinomian can passe them all over and alwaies speak of those places which declare Gods grace to us but not our duty to him Without holinesse no man can see God now by the Antinomians argument as a man may be justified while he is wicked and doth abide so so also he may be glorified and saved for this is their principle that Christ hath purchased justification glory and salvation for us even though sinners and enemies 6. They are in their owne nature a defence against sinne and corruption If we doe but consider the nature of these graces though imperfect yet that will pleade for the necessity of them Eph. 6. 14 16. There you have some graces a shield and some a breast-plate now every souldier knoweth the necessity of these in time of war It 's true the Apostle speaks of the might of the Lord and prayer must be joyned to these but yet the principall doth not oppose the instrumentall Hence Rom. 13. they are called the weapons of the Light It 's Luthers observation He doth not call the works of darknesse the weapons of darknesse but good works he doth call weapons because we ought to use good works as weapons quia bonis operibus debemus uti tanquam armis to resist Satan and he calls them weapons of light because they are from God the fountaine of light and because they are according to Scripture the true light although Drusius thinketh light is here used for victory as Jud. 5. 31. Psal 132. 17 18. and so the word is used by Homer and Marcellinus speaks of an ancient custome when at supper time the children brought in the candles they cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. They are necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the Spirit of God Hence it 's called faith which worketh by love The Papist Lorinus thinketh we speak a contradiction because sometimes wee say faith only justifieth sometimes that unlesse our faith be working it cannot justifie us but here is no contradiction for it 's onely thus Faith which is a living faith doth justifie though not as it doth live for faith hath two notable acts 1. To apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and thus it justifieth 2. To purifie and cleanse the heart and to stirre up other graces and thus it doth not And thus Paul and James may be reconciled for James brings that very passage to prove Abraham was not justified by faith alone which Paul brings to prove he was because one intends to shew that his faith was a working faith and the other that that alone did concurre to justifie and thus in this sense some learned men say Good workes are necessary to preserve a man in the state of justification although they doe not immediately concurre to that act as in a man although his shoulders and breast do not concur immediatly to the act of seeing yet if a mans eye and head were not knit to those parts hee could not see and so though the fire doe not burne as it is light yet it could not burn unlesse it were so for it supposeth then the subject would be destroyed It 's a saying of John Husse Where good workes are not without faith cannot be within Ubi bona opera non apparent ad extra ibi fides non est ad intra Therefore as Christ while he remained the second Person was invisible but when he was incarnated then he became visible so must thy faith be incarnated into works and it must become flesh as it were 8. They are necessary by debt and obligation So that God by his soveraignty might have commanded all obedience from man though he should give him no reward of eternall life Therefore Durand did well argue that we cannot merit at Gods hand because the more good wee are enabled to doe wee are the more beholding to God Hence it is that we are his servants Servus non est persona sed res and we are more servants to God then the meerest slave can be to man for we have our being and power to work from him And this obligation is so perpetuall and necessary that no covenant of grace can abolish it for grace doth not destroy nature gratia non destruit naturam 9. By command of God This is the will of God your sanctification So that you may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God And thus the Law of God still remaineth as a rule and directory And thus Paul professed hee delighted in the Law of God in his inward man and that place Rom. 12. presseth our renovation comparing us to a sacrifice implying we are consecrated and set apart to him a dog or a swine might not be offered to God And the word Offer doth imply our readinesse and alacrity He also addeth many epithets to the will of God that so we may be moved to rejoyce in it There is therefore no disputing or arguing against the will of God If our Saviour Matth. 5. saith He shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven that breaketh the least commandement how much more inexcusable is the Antinomian who teacheth the abolition of all of them 10. They are necessary by way of comfort to our selves And this opposeth many Antinomian passages who forbid us to take any peace by our holinesse Now it 's true to take them so as to put confidence in them to take comfort from them as a cause that cannot be for who can look upon any thing he doth with that boldnesse It was a desperate speech of Panigarola a Papist as Rivet
10 17 17 203 Acts. 7 37 14  38 208 Romanes 1 18 68  19 77 2 14. 15 57  27 265 3 27 238  31 202 4 5 36  14 237 5 1 24  6. 8. 10 37 6 15 224 7 1. 2 227  per totum 9 8 11 38  13   29. 30 36 13 12 43 12 1 44 14 22 281 1 Corinthians 2 14  7 37 85 9 20 226 15 10 94 2 Corinthians 3 7 267 3 11 211 6 16 38 Galat. 3. 2 205  18   23 16  23. 24 269 4 24 157 5 23 54 5 5. 4. 13. 14 221 5 20 279 Ephesians 1 10 140. 134 2 14 211  15 212 3 12 38 6 2 171  14. 16 43 Philip. 3. 9 218 1 Thes 2. 16 265 1 Timothy 1 8. 9 17 1 9 49 4 8 42 7 5 265 2 Timothy 4 8 41 Titus 2 11. 12 204  14 40 Hebrewes 6 18 218 9 4 163  7 247  13. 14 245 10 17 244 11 16 253 12 5. 6. 7. 8 245  ult 34 Jam. 2. 8 265 1 Peter 3. 1 46 2 Peter 1 10 42  19 252 2 2. 15. 21 33 FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. The Text opened 1. The Law is good in respect of the matter 2. In respect of the authority of it 3. It 's instrumentally good 4. The Law is good in respect of its sanction 5. In respect of the acts of it * Assert of free grace pag. 31. 6. In respect of the end 7. In respect of the adjuncts 8. In respect of the use of it 1. Because it restrains and limits sin in the ungodly 2. Because it condemnes them 1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption 2. It discovers sin unto them 3. It makes them disclaim all their own righteousnes 4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits 1. The Law according to the use of the word in the Scripture is not onely a strict 〈◊〉 of things to be done by way of command but denoteth any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept The acceptions of the word Law in Scripture are divers 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another 4. Christs obedience exempts not us from ours 5. Beleevers sins condemned though not their persons * Dr Crisp 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it * Dr Crisp 7. The Law though primarily it requireth perfect holinesse yet it excludes not a Mediatour The Law though it cannot justifie us is notwithstanding good and not to be rejected Grace and Christ not to be advanced oppositely to the Law The abuse of the Law no derogation to it 1. The Law is abused when converted to unprofitable disputes 2. When in the handling of it respect is had to worldly ends 3. When men deny it 4. When they misinterpret it 5. When they oppose it to Christ 6. When they expect justification by it 1. Justification by the Law overthrowes the nature of grace 2. Opposeth the fulnesse of Christ 3. Destroyes the true doctrine of Justification 4. Overthrows justifying faith 5. Discourageth the broken-hearted sinner 6. Brings men into themselves 7. Overthrowes the doctriâ—e of imputed righteousnesse 8. Keeps a man slavish in all his duties 9. Joyns a mans own graces to Christs mediation 10. Overthrowes hope 11. Robs God of his glory 12. Makes more in sin to damne then in Christ to save 13. Overthrowes the doctrine of sanctification 14. Takes away the doctrine of the Law 15. Overthroweth the consideration of man while he is justified Ministers ought so to set forth grace and defend good works as thereby to give the Enemy neither cause of exception nor insultation 1. Antinomians deny works to be a way to heaven 2. They deny their presence in the person justified 3. They deny any gain or losse to come by them 4. They deny them to be signes of grace How God may be said to justifie the ungodly Foure things required to the essence of good works Good works are necessary 1. Because they are the fruit of Christs death 2. Because in respect of evill workes there is some Analogy between heaven and them 3. Because a promise is made unto them 4. Because testimonies assuring us of our election 5. Because we cannot be saved without them 6. Because they are a defence against sinâ— 7. Because necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the Spirit of God 8. By debt obligation 9. By command of God 1 Thes 4. 3. Rom. 12. 2. 10. By way of comfort to our selves 11. Because God is glorified by them 12. Because others are benefited thereby 13. Because godlinesse inherent is the end of our faith and justification The Law to a godly man is a delight not a burden The godly are under the desert of the curse but not the actuall condemnation of the Law The Law in the restraining power thereof was not made for the righteous but unrighteous 1. The true worship of God cannot be diseerned from false but by the Law 2. The depth of sin cannot be discovered without it Who meant by Gentiles How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law How said to do the things of the Law by nature The distinction of Morall and Theologicall good rejected What is here meant by Nature A two-fold writing of the Law in mens hearts and which here meant The law written in mens hearts two waies Rom. 4. 15. The Law of Nature consists in those common notions which are ingraffed in all mens hearts Some fragments onely of this Law left in us Those common notions in which this law consists are in us by nature Foure bounds of the law of Nature The obligation of the law of Nature is from God The obligation of the law of nature is perpetual and immutable The light of Nature is a remnant of Gods image 1. The light of Nature usefull and necessary for the making of wholsome lawes in Common-wealths 2. It instigateth to good duties towards God and man 3. It makes men inexcusable The light of Nature as corrupted by sin is an enemy to God and goodnes The light of Nature obscured three wayes The light of Nature inform'd by Gods Word an excellent help The light of Nature as it is a relict of Gods image is necessary in religious and morall things and that two wayes Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none do crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different wayes The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eyes 2. Because it 's prone to appoint mediatours between
contrary and therefore for God to deal 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 he 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 only not deserve this but the clean contrary Now what a cordiall may this be to the broken heart exercised with its sinnes How may the sick 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 down in what sense we 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 a knowledge grace necessary to every good act all the day long let him be an anathema and this faire colour did deceive the Eastern Churches that they did acquit him But Austine and others observed that he did use the word grace to decline envie gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendam invidiam even as the Papists do at this time therefore if they say Thy patience is grace Thy hope is grace and therefore by grace thou art saved say This is not the Gospel-grace the Scripture-grace by which sins are pardoned and we saved 2. It opposeth Christ in his fulnesse It makes an halfe-Christ Thus the false Apostles made Christ void and fell off from him Neither will this serve to say that the Apostle speakes of the ceremoniall law for as we told you though the differences about the Jewish ceremonies were the occasion of those divisions in the primitive times yet the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis even to all works whatsoever and therefore excludes Abrahams and Davids works from justification Now Christ would be no Christ if workes were our righteousnesse because the righteousnesse by the faith of Christ is opposed to Pauls own righteousnesse and this is called the righteousnesse of God Yea this is said to be made righteousnesse unto us and he is called the Lord our righteousnesse and howsoever Bellarmine would understand these phrases causally as when God is called the Lord our salvation yet we shall shew you it cannot be so therefore if thy works justifie thee what needs a Christ Can thy graces be a Christ 3. It destroyeth the true doctrine of Justification I shall not lanch into this Ocean at this time only consider how the Scripture speaks of it as not infusing what is perfect but forgiving what is imperfect as in David Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin I shall not at this time dispute whether there be two parts of Justification one positive in respect of the term to which called Imputation of Christs righteousnesse the other negative in respect of the term from which Not accounting sin This later I only presse Therefore What is it to be justified Not to have holinesse accepted of us but our sins remitted Justitia nostra est indulgentia tua Domine Now what a comfortable plea is this for an humbled soul O Lord it is not the question what good I have but what evil thou wilt forget It is not to finde righteous works in me but to passe by the unrighteousnesse in me What can satisfie thy soul if this will not do Is not this as I told you with Chrysostome to stand upon a spring rising higher and higher 4. It quite overthroweth justifying faith for when Christ and grace is overthrowne this also must fall to the ground There are these three main concurrent causes to our justification The grace of God as the efficient Christ as the meritorious and faith as the instrumentall and although one of these causes be more excellent then the other the efficient then the instrumentall yet all are equally necessary to that effect of justification That faith doth instrumentally justifie I here take it for granted As for the Antinomian who holdeth it before faith and thinketh the argument from Infants will plainly prove it I shall shew the contrary in its due time onely this is enough that an instrumentall particle is attributed to it By faith in his bloud and By faith in his Name and justified By faith It is true it 's never said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for faith as if there were dignity or merit in it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now to set up works is to oppose faith as the Apostle argueth therefore faith as it is a work is to be opposed to it self as it 's an instrument justifying 5. It quite discourageth a broken-hearted sinner taking away peace with God the effect of justification and glorying in tribulations If you consider Chapt. 5. of Rom. you will finde that peace onely comes this way yea and to glory in tribulations for ver 1. being justified by faith we have peace with God Alas what patience what repentance what pains and religious duties can procure thee peace with God Can that which would damne save Can that which would work woe in thee comfort thee Vae etiam laudabili vitae erit saith Austin as you heard Woe to the most worthy life that is if it should be judged strictly by God And then mark the object of this peace Peace with God Take a Pharisee take a morall or a formall man he may have a great deale of peace because of his duties and good heart yet this is not a peace with God so also for glorying in tribulations how can this be If all a mans glory were for himselfe would not every affliction rather break him saying This is the fruit of my sinne 6. It brings men into themselves And this is very dangerous A man may not only exclude Christ from his soul by grosse sins but by self-confidences You are they which justifie your selves And so the Jewes they would not submit to their own righteousnesse see how afraid Paul is to be found in his own righteousnesse Beza puts an emphasis upon this word Found implying that Justice and the Law and so the wrath of God is pursuing and seeking after man Where is that man that offends God and transgresseth his Law Where is that man that doth not pray or heare as he should doe Now saith Paul I would not
be found in mine own righteousnesse And this made Luther say Take heed not only of thy sins but also of thy good duties Now if this were all the wine that the Antinomian would drink in Christs cellar if this were all the hony that he would have in Christs hive none would contradict it but we shall shew you the dangerous inferences they make from hence turning that which would be a rod into a serpent 7. It overthroweth the doctrine of imputation and reckoning righteousnesse to us which is spoken of Rom. 4. and in other places I know how this point is vexed divers wayes but this is enough for us If righteousnesse were in us and properly ours what need a righteousnesse be reckoned and imputed to us The Papist maketh imputative and putative and imaginary all one Who can say A lame man say they goeth right because he hath other mens shooes Who can say A deformed Thersites is a faire Absalom because of borrowed beauty But these are easily refuted by Scripture and we shall shew you Christs righteousnesse is as really ours as if it were inherent They differ not in reality but in the manner of being ours Now here the Antinomian and Papist agree in the inferences they make from this doctrine If Christs righteousnesse be ours then there is no sin in us seen by God then we are as righteous as Christ argueth the Antinomian and this absurdity the Papists would put on us 8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties For how must that man be needs tossed up and down which hath no other ground of peace then the works of grace How is the humble heart soon made proud how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly Now you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and feares and James 1. it is made the canker-worm that devoureth all our duties Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that doe oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons as Be not afraid but beleeve so Why doubted ye the word signifieth to be in bivio that a man cannot tell which wayes to take to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up and down as meteors in the aire Now how can a man be bold by any thing that is his By faith we have confidence and boldnesse faith is confidence and faith works confidence but faith whose object is Christ not any thing of ours it 's made the first word also we can speak when we are made sons to cry Abba Father 9. A man may as lawfully joyne Saints or Angels in his mediation with Christ as graces Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious but because it joyneth Christ and others together in that great work Dost not thou the like when thou joynest thy love and grace with Christs obedience The Papist saith Let such and such an holy Saint save me and thou sayest Let my holy love let my holy repentance save me What advantage then hast thou if thou cryest down Saints and then makest thy self one in a Popish way Could therefore thy graces speak they would say as the Angel to John that would worship him Worship thou God worship thou Christ put thy trust in Christ he hath only born our sins so as to take them away and therefore as grosse Idolatry makes the works of God a god so doth more subtle Idolatry make the works of Christ a Christ 10. It overthroweth the grace of hope When faith is destroyed then also hope is This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian now if it be placed in Christ and the Promises it is as firme as faith therefore saith the Apostle of hope Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed but if it were an hope in our selves how often should we be confounded That is good of Austine Noli sperare de te sed de Deo tuo nam si speras de te anima tua conturbatur ad te quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te Do not hope in thy self but God for if so thy soul will never finde ground for security It 's an ignorant distinction among Papists that they may have a certainty of hope but not of faith in matters of salvation whereas they have both the like certainty and differ onely thus faith doth for the present receive the things promised and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties till it come to enjoy them Now to have such an hope as the Papists define Partly coming from Gods grace and partly from our merits Partim è gratia Dei and partim à meritis nostris proveniens must needs be destructive 11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification If you have not meat or drink but by God shall you have pardon of sin without him Abraham beleeved and gave God glory We are apt to account beleeving no glory to God but could we mortifie our corruptions more and more could we exhaust and spend our selves yet this is no more to give glory to God then when we beleeve Now it is good to possesse Christians with this principle To beleeve in Christ is to give glory to Christ we naturally would think to go far on pilgrimages to macerate our bodies were likelier wayes for our Salvation but this would be mans glory more then Gods glory Therefore how did that wretched Monk dying blasphemously say Redde mihi aeternam vitam quam debes Pay me eternall life which thou owest 12. It maketh sin and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation then Christ for salvation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. makes the opposition and sheweth that the gift is far above the transgression Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them there is not more in them to damne then in Christ to save Why should sin be an heavie sin a great sin and Christ not also a wonderfull saving Christ When we say The guilt of sin is infinite that is onely infinite objectivè but now Christs merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them and therefore as sin is exceeding sinfull so let Christ be an exceeding Christ and grace exceeding grace 13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification which declareth it to be inchoate and imperfect that our faith hath much unbelief in it our best gold much drosse our wine much water It is true both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this errour that because sin is covered therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinkle but they doe it upon different grounds whereas Paul Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying who are to pray thus O Lord joyn my obedience with all the suffrings of Christ
Adam when they were to be perfect and entire but by grace pardoning the imperfection of them in which sense the Arminians affirme it Answ Although good workes be requisite in the man justified or saved yet it 's not a Covenant of workes but faith and the reason is because faith only is the instrument that receiveth justification and eternall life and good workes are to qualifie the subject beleeving but not the instrument to receive the covenant so that faith onely is the condition that doth receive the covenant but yet that a man beleeve is required the change of the whole man and that faith onely hath such a receiving nature shall be proved hereafter God willing Use Of exhortation to take heed you turne not the grace of God into licentiousnesse suspect all doctrines that teach comfort but not duty labour indeed to be a spirituall Anatomist dividing between having godlinesse and trusting in it but take heed of Separating Sanctification from Justification Be not a Pharisee nor yet a Publican so that I shall exhort thee at this time not against the Antinomianisme in thy judgement onely but in thine heart also As Luther said Every man hath a Pope in his belly so every man an Antinomian Paul found his flesh rebelling against the Law of God reconcile the Law and the Gospel Justification and Holinesse Follow holinesse as earnestly as if thou hadst nothing to help thee but that and yet rely upon Christs merits as fully as if thou hadst no holinesse at all And what though thy intent be onely to set up Christ and Grace yet a corrupted opinion may soon corrupt a mans life as rheume falling from the head doth putrefie the lungs and other vitall parts LECTURE V. 1 Tim. 1. 9. Knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man WE are at this time to demolish one of the strongest holds that the Adversary hath For it may be supposed that the eighth verse cannot be so much against them as the ninth is for them therefore Austin observeth well The Apostle saith he joyning two things as it were contrary together doth monere movere both admonish and provoke the Reader to finde out the true answer to this question how both of them can be true We must therefore say to these places as Moses did to the two Israelites fighting Why fall you out seeing you are brethren Austin improveth the objection thus If the Law be good when used lawfully and none but the righteous man can use it lawfully how then should it not be but to him who onely can make the true use of it Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us consider who they are that are said to know and secondly what is said to be knowne The subject knowing is here in this Verse in the singular number in the Verse before in the plurall it 's therefore doubted whether this be affirmed of the same persons or no. Some Expositors thinke those in the eighth and these in the ninth are the same and that the Apostle doth change the number from the plurall to the singular which is very frequent in Scripture as Galat. 6. 1. Others as Salmeron make a mysticall reason in the changing Because saith he there are but few that know the Law is not made for the righteous therefore he speaketh in the singular number There is a second kind of Interpreters and they do not make this spoken of the same but understand this word as a qualification of him that doth rightly use the Law Thus The Law is good if a man use it lawfully and he useth it lawfully that knoweth it 's not made for the righteous Which of these interpretations you take is not much materiall onely this is good to observe that the Apostle using these words We know and Knowing doth imply what understanding all Christians ought to have in the nature of the Law Secondly let us consider what Law he here speaks of Some have understood it of the ceremoniall Law because of Christs death that was to be abolished and because all the ceremonies of the Law were convictions of sinnes and hand-writings against those that used them But this cannot be for circumcision was commanded to Abraham a righteous man and so to all the godly under the Old Testament and the persons who are opposed to the righteous man are such who transgresse the Morall Law Others that do understand it of the Morall Law apply it to the repetition and renovation of it by Moses for the Law being at first made to Adam upon his fall wickednesse by degrees did arise to such an height that the Law was added because of transgressions as Paul speaketh But we may understand it of the Morall Law generally onely take notice of this that the Apostle doth not here undertake a theologicall handling of the use of the Law for that he doth in other places but he brings it in as a generall sentence to be accommodated to his particular meaning concerning the righteous man here We must not interpret it of one absolutely righteous but one that is so quoad conatum and desiderium for the people of God are called righteous because of the righteousnesse that is in them although they be not justified by it The Antinomian and Papist doe both concurre in this errour though upon different grounds that our righteousness and works are perfect and therefore do apply those places A people without spot or wrinkle c. to the people of God in this life and that not onely in justification but in sanctification also As saith the Antinomian in a dark dungeon when the doore is opened and the sun-light come in though that be dark in it self yet it is made all light by the sun Or As water in a red glasse though that be not red yet by reason of the glasse it lookes all red so though we be filthy in our selves yet all that God seeth in us looks as Christs not onely in Justification but Sanctification This is to be confuted hereafter Thirdly let us take notice how the Antinomian explaineth this place and what he meanes by this Text. The old Antinomian Islebius Agricola states the question thus Whether the Law be to a righteous man as a teacher ruler commander and requirer of obedience actively Or Whether the righteous man doth indeed the works of the Law but that is passivè the Law is wrought by him but the Law doth not work on him So then the question is not Whether the things of the Law be done for they say the righteous man is active to the Law and not that to him but Whether when these things are done they are done by a godly man admonished instructed and commanded by the Law of God And this they deny As for the later Antinomian he speaketh very uncertainly and inconsistently Sometimes he grants the Law is a Rule but very hardly and seldome then presently kicketh all down again For
that spake then they understand to be the Son and this was done they say as a preludium to his Incarnation But some of those Ancients give a dangerous and false reason which was because they held the Father only was invisible and so apply unto the Father only that text No man hath seen God at any time so that they thought the Son might be seen but not the Father which passages the Arrians did greedily catch at afterwards But this is certain the second Person is no more visible or mutable then the first only it may be doubted whether all those administrations and apparitions which were by God in the Old Testament were not by the second Person indeed in the New Testament that voice from heaven This is my welbelou Son must needs be from the Father immediatly It hath been very hard to know when the Angel that appeared hath been a created one or increated the Son of God Tostatus gives this rule when the things communicated in Scripture as done by an Angel are of small consequence or belonging to one man or a few men then it is a created Angel but if they be matters of great concernment or belonging to many people then it is by an increated Angel he enumerates many examples which are not to my purpose neither may we be curious in determining of the former question Let the use of this be to take heed how we cry down this Law which God hath so honoured either by Doctrines or Practises We may live down the Law and we may preach down the Law both which are a reproach to it and the Law is of such a perpetuall immutable obligation that the very being of a sin is in this that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law so that if there be no obligatory power of the Law there can be no sin If the Heathen thought politicall Laws were the wals of a City and it were no advantage to have fortified wals and prostrated laws how much more is this true of Gods Commandments Those three things which are required in a Law giver authority wisdom and holiness were transcendently in God therefore every sin hath disobedience in it because it is against authority folly in it because it 's against wisdom and injustice in it because against righteousness In the next place it 's worth the observing how Paul in this place and so in his other Epistles is still carefull so to bound the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel so as neither may incroach upon each other from whence floweth this Doctrine That the Law ought so to be preached as that it should not obscure the Gospel and the Gospel so commended as that there may be no destruction to the Law This was Pauls method in all his Epistles which he diligently observed Indeed it hath been very hard so to give both their due that either the preacher or the hearer hath not thereby been inclined to make one prejudiciall to the other Not but that the Gospel is to be preferred and that in divers respects but when it is so extolled that the Law is made useless and unprofitable this is to go beyond lawfull limits and how difficult it hath been to hit the mark here appeareth in that the Iews Papists Arminians Socinians and generally all Heretiques have advanced the Law to the eclipsing of the Gospel and there have been few who have extolled the Gospel to the prejudice of the Law To proceed therefore regularly we will shew when the Law is preached prejudicially to the Gospel and when the Gospel to the Law In the first place the Law is then stretched too far when the works of it are pressed to justification whether these works be the fruits of grace or antecedaneous to grace it is not much difference to this point and this is that dangerous doctrine of the Law which the Apostle in his Epistle doth so vehemently withstand and for which he is not afraid to charge the teachers thereof with apostacy from Christ and such who make Christ and all his sufferings in vain And this is indeed to be a legall Preacher insomuch that it is an high calumny to charge Protestant Preachers with the odious accusation of legall preachers for he is not a legall preacher in the Scripture sence which presseth the duty and works of the Law but that urgeth them for justification and that righteousness which we must rely upon before the Tribunall of God and thou mayst justly fear it is thy unsanctified corrupt heart which makes thee averss from the Law in the former sence 2. The Law is used derogatory to the Gospel when Christ is not indeed excluded from justification but Christ and works are conjoyned together and this is more sugred poison then the former Now this was the doctrine of those false Apostles among the Galatians they did not totally exclude him but yet they did not make him all in all but God doth not approve of such unequall yoking It is equall impiety to preach no Christ or an half and imperfect Christ and therefore as those were cursed Doctrines which take away any of his natures so also are those which diminish of his sufficiency There is but one Mediator and as God will not give his glory to another so neither will Christ that of his Mediatorship to any other so that as God is jealous of his honour when men give it to fools no less is Christ when men give it to the works they do And this makes the way of justifying Faith so difficult because it is so inbred in mens hearts to have something of their own and so unwilling are they to be beholding to Christ for all 3. Then is the Law preached prejudicially to the Gospel when it is made of it self instrumental to work grace It cannot be denied as is hereafter to be shewn that the Law is used by God to begin and increase grace but this cometh wholly by Christ It is not of the Law it self that this spirituall vertue is communicated to men Even as when the woman touched the hem of Christs garment It was not efficacy from the hem but from Christ that wrought so wonderfully in her It is one thing to say grace is given with the preaching of the Law and another thing by the Law so that the Gospel must be acknowledged the onely fountain both of grace justifying and sanctifying for as in natural things if no Sun did arise every creature would lie dead as it were in its own inability to do any thing there would be no naturall life or growth so if the Son of righteousness do not arise with healing no Law or Ordinance could ever be beneficiall to us In the second place the Gospel may be extolled to the ruin of the Law and that first when it is said to bring a liberty not only from the damnatory power but also the obligatory power of it How well would it be
no pardon because many of them did fall into such gross sins for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sin against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Now if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin they could not have done it I reply what and if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himself to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sin Why doth he Isa 1. call upon Ierusalem to repent of her whoredoms murders saying If their sins were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole box of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs blood cleansing from all sin I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he mean it universaly They were to confess their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himselfe Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God speaks to the Church that while she was in her blood he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Iews as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isa 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Iews before God called them Did the Iews first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins then all those argumments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our owne righteousness c. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame A Iew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will do something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we were enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Iews Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here meddle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by it's own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unless the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs blood at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himselfe from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it only is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I ask whether God did not justifie David and the ungodly in those dayes from all eternity as they speak and if he did why should not all their sins be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sins pardoned in the like manner In the mean while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sins done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as we God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours if God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say We may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and he much necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore he is called a Lamb slain from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I deny that even under the
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
mould in it will much help the tree which hindered it before Thus lay aside Reason at first and then receive truths by Faith and afterwards improve them by Reason and it will excellently help Divine truths are not founded upon Reason but Scripture yet Reason may bear them up as you see the elme or wall bear up the vine but the elme or wall doth not bring forth the fruit onely the vine doth that As long therefore as the light of Nature is not the rule but ruled and squared by Gods Word so long it cannot deceive us The second grand consideration is That the light of Nature is necessary in religious and morall things though it be not sufficient We speak of the light of Nature in the first consideration as it is the residue of 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 wayes 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 he 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 faith we understand Thus it is necessary as an instrument 3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth crosse the truth of 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 wayes soever it come there can therefore be no contradiction between it And hereupon our Divines doe when they have confuted the Popish 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 judgement 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 beames yet it is not against it 4. The same object may be known 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 saith 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 go 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 self by discourse And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding but it 's simple and apprehensive 5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary yet it is not 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 truths they are Scripture truths 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 only 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 down any worship of God Hence God doth so often forbid us to walk after our own 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 it 's 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 applyed 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 insufficiency is described in these three reasonings 1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye It was well called by Parisiensis a madnesse in some who doubted not to say The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then
as to good 2. God doth this in the way of his Providence as a Creatour the other he doth in the way of Predestination as a Father in Christ 3. The other aide may be said to be due as our Divines speak of originall righteousnesse upon a supposition that a man is made a creature to do such actions yet not properly a debt but that for our sin we are deprived of it but this speciall help of grace cannot be called so 3. It is wholly unable to work any good thing All this while we have considered the power of man but as in the lower region and if you doe consider him in reference to good things so he hath no power or will or free-will at all but as Austin said before Luther it 's servum arbitrium a servant and inslaved will to sin onely Indeed we have not lost our understandings or our wills but to know or will that which is good is wholly lost Though we have not lost the will yet we have the rectitude in that will whereby we should encline to good And this may be proved from many Arguments 1. From all those places of Scripture which declare our estate to be full of sin and corruption and altogether wicked Now Doe men gather grapes of thornes or figs of thistles Hence the Father compareth us well to the ship in a tempest that is destitute of a Pilot we are dashed continually upon rocks though this speak of the negative onely not the positive corruption 2. All those places which speak of grace and conversion and regeneration as the work of God As for those places where we are said to repent and to turn unto God in time we shall cleare only these Texts prove that all the good things we do they are the works of the Lord not that God beleeveth or repenteth in us but he worketh those actions in us efficiently which we doe formally and vitally 3. All those places whereby glory and praise is to be given unto God onely and not unto our selves What hast thou thou hast not received We are to glory in nothing because no good thing is ours Therefore we bring forth good things as Sarahs dead womb brought forth a child it was not a child of nature but a child of the meere Promise thus are all our graces And indeed if we could either in whole or part work our own conversion we might thank God and our wils But how absurd would this be Lord I thank thee for the turning of my heart when I was willing to turn it 4. It cannot prepare or dispose it self for the grace of justification or sanctification As it cannot immediately work any good thing so neither can a naturall man dispose or prepare himself for the great works of grace There is no truth in such an assertion Let man do what he can naturally God will meet him graciously and the reasons are plain 1. Because no naturall thing is in it self an order or a disposition to a supernaturall thing for they differ in their whole kind and nature Hence it is that we never read of any Heathens that by the improvement of a naturall light had supernaturall vouchsafed unto them 2. Those places that speak of our totall corruption intensively onely evil and extensively all the thoughts of a man are evil and protensively continually do sufficiently declare that we cannot prepare our selves to meet God 3. If we could prepare or dispose our selves to grace then the greatest cause of glory would still be in a mans own self For Why doth Peter repent and not Judas Because may some say he disposed and set himself to repent and not Judas But still here is the Question Why did Peter set himself to repent and not Judas Here it must be ultimately resolved either into the grace of God or the will of man 4. All those similitudes that the Scripture useth do illustrate this thing We are not said to be blind or lame but dead in sin now did Lazarus prepare himself to rise So it 's called Regeneration Can a man dispose himself to have life I know these comparisons must not be extended too far yet the Scripture using such expressions to declare our utter inability we may well presse those breasts of the Scripture so farre and bring out no blood The parched earth doth not dispose it self for the rain nor doth the cold ice of it self thaw which is the Fathers Similie Yet fifthly We may hold truly some antecedaneous works upon the heart before those graces be bestowed on us This take to antidote against the Antinomian who speaks constantly of the soul taking Christ even while it 's a grievous polluted soul as if there were no polishing of this crooked timber and rough stone but even taken out of the quarry and so immediately put into the building Those in the Acts that were pricked in heart were yet bid to repent and so they cried out What shall we doe to be saved The sick feeleth his burden before he cometh for ease so that a grosse sinner is not immediately put out of his vile wayes into Christ onely these limitations you must take 1. That all these things sight of sin trembling for fear confused desires they are the works of Gods grace moving us they do not come from our own naturall strength 2. These are not absolutely necessary in every one We know how Matthew and Lydia did follow Christ and God saith he was found of some that did not seek him Paul was in a most cursed indisposition when the Lord called him but generally God takes this way 3. These are not necessary antecedents so as the grace of conversion doth necessarily follow Wee reade of Cain and Judas troubled for sin These are a wildernesse that a man may dye in and never goe into Canaan There may be throes and pangs when yet no childe but wind is to be delivered Hence a people that have been civill have not been called but Publicans and Harlots The object of election is for the most part few for number infirme for power and sinfull for conversation though in the godly these are needles that will draw in the threed yet this state must not be called a third middle estate between regenerate and unregenerate as some feigne Lastly none of these workings can be called so properly preparations or dispositions in themselves but onely intentionally in God Our Saviour looked on a young man and loved him and said hee was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven that is the life hee lived was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven yet this was no preparation in it selfe to it nay he may be further off as two high hills may be neer in the tops to one another but the bottomes some miles asunder And this is so great a matter that great sins are made by God a preparation to some mans conversion which yet of themselves they could never
it converts the soul and we may adde those places of inlightning the minde that they cleanse 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 which all is answered is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith that is of the 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 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 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 make vapours only you must acknowledge one first cause which had not it's 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 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 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 dote 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 selfe 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 orthodox men speake otherwise and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question but as yet that which I have delivered earrieth 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 Isrealites 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 do 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 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 do 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 Jews and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God which is not to be understood of the unity of his Essence but Will and Promise Now when all this is asserted he maketh an objection which is usuall with him in this Epistle and he doth it for this end to take away the calumny and reproach cast upon him by his adversaries as one that would destroy the Law The objection then is this propounded by way of interrogation to affect the more Do we make voyd the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle used this word in this Chapter ver 3. and it fignifieth to make empty and voide so that The Law shall be of no use or operation Now to this the Apostle answereth negatively by words of defiance and detestation God forbid So that by this expression you see how intolerable that doctrine ought to be unto the people of God that would take away the Law And the Apostle doth not only defie this objection but addeth we establish the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Metaphor from those that do corroborate and make firm a pillar or any such thing that was falling It hath much troubled Interpreters how Paul could say he established the Law especially considering those many places in his Epistles which seem to abrogate it Some understand it thus That the righteousnesse of faith hath it's witnesse from the Law and Prophets as ver 21. in this Chapter so that in this sense they make the Law established because that which was witnessed therein doth now come to passe Even as our Saviour said Moses did bear witnesse of him But this interpretation doth not come up to the Apostles meaning Those that limit this speech to the Ceremoniall Law do easily interpret it thus That the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Christ who being the substance and body they are all now fulfilled in him But the Apostle comprehends the Morall Law under the word Law The Papists they make the Gospel a new Law and they compare it with the old Law having the Spirit as two things differing only gradually so that they say the old Law is established by the new as the childhood is established by elder age which is not by abolition but perfection That which I see the Orthodox pitch upon is that the Law is established three wayes by the Gospel First whereas the Law did threaten death to every transgressor this is established in Christ who satisfied the justice of God Secondly in that the Law requireth perfect obedience this is also fulfilled in Christ Now this is a matter worth discussion Whether the righteousnesse we are yet justified by be the righteousness of the Law For those learned men that are against the imputation of Christs active obedience they urge this argument which seemeth to carry much strength with it That if Christs active obedience be made ours and we justified by that then are we still justified by the works of the Law and so the righteousnesse of faith and works is all one faith in us and works in Christ If therefore active obedience be made ours as I conceive the truth to be in that doctrine then we may easily see the Law is established Thirdly but lastly which I take to be the truth and Austin heretofore interpreteth it so the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain Grace in some measure to fulfill the Law so that we still keep the Law in the preceptive and informative part of it and do obtain by faith in Christ obedience in some degree to it which obedience also though it be not the Covenant of grace yet is the way to Salvation LECTVRE XXII ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law THis Text is already explained and there are two Observations do naturally arise from it as first That it is an hard thing so to set up Christ grace as not thereby be thought to destroy the Law Thus was Paul misunderstood by some and so the Antinomians not rightly understanding in what latitude the Orthodox in their disputations against Popery did oppose the Law to the Gospel were thereby plunged into a dangerous errour But on this point I will not insist The second doctrine is that which I intend namely That the doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law And this doctrine will directly lead us to lay our hands on the chiefe pillars of that house which the Antinomians have built The Question then at this time to be discussed is Whether the Law be abrogated or no by Christ to the beleevers under the Gospel And this Question I will answer by severall propositions that may conduce to the clearing of the the truth for it would seem as if the Scripture held out contradictions in this point In my Text it 's denyed that the Apostles do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make void the Law yet 2 Cor. 3. 11. The Apostle speaking of the Law hath this passage If that which be done away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the word is expresly used that yet here is denied so Ephes 2 14. Christ is described 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that maketh voyd the hand-writing against us And in that place the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when yet Mat. 5. he denied that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve the Law Grave therefore and serious is Chemnitius his admonition In all other things generall words beget confusion and obscurity but in the doctrine of the abrogation of the Law they are very dangerous unless it be distinctly explained how it is abrogated In the first place therefore consider That about a Law there are these affections if I may call them so There is an Interpretation a dispensation or relaxation and these differ from an abrogation for the former do suppose the Law still standing in force though
mitigated but Abrogation is then properly when a Law is totally taken away And this Abrogation ariseth sometimes from the expresse constitution at first which did limit and prescribe the time of the lawes continuance sometimes by an expresse revoking and repealing of it by that authority which made it sometimes by adding to that repeale an expresse law commanding the contrary Now it may be easily proved that the Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes they are abrogated by expresse repeale The Judiciall Law 1 Pet. 2. 13. where they are commanded to be subject to every ordination of man and this was long foretold Genes 49. 10. The Law-giver shall be taken from Judah The Ceremoniall Law that is also expresly repealed Act. 15. and in other places not that these were ill or that they did come from an ill author but because the fulnesse and substance of them was now come of whom the ceremonies were a shadow Yet still you must remember that while they were commanded of God they were the exercises of faith and piety God did dispense grace in the use of them only they were beggarly and empty to such who trusted in them neglected Christ Nor doth this assertion contradict that of the Apostle Ephes 2. 15. where he cals those ordinances enmity and decrees against us for those ceremonies may be considered two wayes first as they were signes of Gods grace and favour and secondly as they were demonstrative of a duty which we were tyed unto but could not performe and in this sense all those purifications and cleansings were against us Thus we see these lawes in every consideration made void so that it is not now an indifferent thing to use them though we would not put our trust in them but sinfull Hence I cannot see how that of Luther is true upon Gal. 2. who sath He beleeveth that if the Jewes beleeving had observed the Law and Circumcision in that manner which the Apostles permitted them that Judaisme had yet stood and that all the world should have received the ceremonies of the Jews In the second place if we would speake exactly and properly We cannot say in any good sense that the Morall Law is abrogated at all It is true indeed our learned Writers shew that the Law in abrogated in respect of justification condemnation and rigour of obedience all which I shall instance in afterwards but if a man would speake rigidly he cannot say it is abrogated Wee may say it 's mitigated as to our persons though Christ our surety did fully undergoe its for if God had taken away the Law so that man nor his surety had been under the curse of it or should have obeyed it then had it been properly abrogated whereas now seeing our surety was bound to satisfie it and perfectly to obey it and we still obliged to conforme unto it we cannot so properly in the generall say it was abrogated Therefore we may more properly say that there is a change and alteration in us towards the Law then that the Law is changed or abrogated Hence observe though the Apostle denyeth that he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make void the Law yet he useth this expression Rom. 7. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are freed or abrogated from the Law rather then that is abrogated Thus it is if we would speake properly yet because the satisfaction and obedience is by Christ and not by us we may say that it is abrogated to us so that we may not look for remission of sins or justification by it But you must still distinguish when we speake of the Law some parts of it from the whole some parts of the Law may be abolished and yet not the whole nature of it for there is in the Law these parts First the Commands Secondly the Promises of life to him that doth them and thirdly the threatnings of eternall wrath to him that faileth in the least Now the Morall Law though it be abrogated in respect of the two later to a beleever yet in respect of the former it doth still abide yea and will continue in Heaven it selfe And we have already proved against the Antinomians that one part of the Law may abide when the other doth not The third proposition Those that say the Law is abolished as it is foedus but not as it is regula say true The Law may be considered as it is a Covenant or as it is an absolute Rule requiring conformity unto it Now it may be truly granted that the Law is abolished in the former notion though not in the later only in expressing this Covenant there is difference among the Learned some make the Law a Covenant of works and upon that ground that it is abrogated others call it a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace and make it only occasionally as it were introduced to put more luster and splendour upon grace Others call it a mixt covenant of works and grace but that is hardly to be understood as possible much lesse as true I therefore think that opinion true as shall be hereafter shewed that the Law given by Moses was a Covenant of grace and that God did not since man fallen ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of grace Though indeed this Covenant of grace did breake out more clearly in succession of ages according to the wise dispensation of Gods good pleasure So then the Law as a Covenant though of grace is abrogated because though there be still the same essence of the former and later covenant yet the administration of the former is altogether antiquated This fully appeareth in Heb. 7. 18 19. and again Heb. 8. 7 8. whosoever therefore expects life and justification by the Law he sets up the covenant of works again Nor is it any advantage to say these workes are the workes of grace and wrought by Christs spirit for still if we were justified by doing whatsoever the works were yet it would be in such a way as Adam was though with some difference We therefore doe desire to lift up our voices as vehemently as any Antinomian against self Justiciaries against pharisaicall Popish formall men that say unto the good workes they doe These are thy Christ These are thy Jesus oh my soul In matter of Justification we would have all of Pauls Spirit to know nothing but Christ crucified to account all things dung and drosse We desire to bewaile and abundantly to bewaile the little need and want that people feel of Christ in all their duties We are troubled that any can be quiet in their duties and performances and do not cry out None but Christ None but Christ All this we pleade for and preach only we hold the Law as a rule still to walk by though not a Covenant of works to be justified by 4. The Antinomian distinction of the Law abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it
he cannot meane the Law of Moses for all know that was long after but he meanes what 's done in obedience to the Morall Law so farre as it was then revealed The Apostle useth also another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law which is to be understood in this sense by works done in conformity to the Law and in this sense the Apostle urgeth that righteousnesse or the promise are not by the Law But all the difficulty in this controversie is about the phrase Under the Law Therefore take notice 4. There is a voluntary being under the Law as Christs was and there is to be under it in an ill sense A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law is acceptable and thus the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 20. the Apostle saith he was made to some as under the Law though there indeed he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is added because of the ceremoniall part of the Law Therefore he calleth himselfe excellently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a godly man be not properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he addeth to Christ lest they should think that he spoke of the whole Law the ceremoniall part of it which was abolished by Christ so that a godly man in a well explained sense may be said to be under the Law Aquinas Comment ad Cap. 6. v. 14. Hath this distinction A man may be under the Law or subjected to it two wayes First willingly and readily as Christ Secondly unwillingly by way of compulsion when not out of love but feare men do obey the Law this is sinful in the former sense all beleevers may be said to be under the Law but yet because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense as here in the text and in that place tell me ye that desire to be under the Law though Law there be used for the whole Ministery of Moses and not of the Morall Law let us consider in what sense this is denied to the Godly 5. That Interpretation of some though of solid Judgement who make the phrase Not to be under the Law to be as much as Not under the curse of the Law or Not obnoxious to the guilt by it seemeth not to agree with the context I know this is generally received as the sense of the place and there is this argument urged for it because the Apostle maketh an objection from hence Shall we sinne because we are not under the Law but under grace Therefore it should seem that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it and grace for pardoning and free Justification but because the Apostle is here speaking of sanctification both in this Chapter and the Chapter following I preferre Beza's interpretation which makes the being under the Law to be the same in sense with under sin for the Apostle speaking of himselfe as carnall Chap. 7. saith that the Law wrought in him all manner of evill and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man so that the more the Law is applyed to him the more doth his corruption break forth Now then this is the Apostles argument Let not sin reign in you for now you are not under the Law stirring up sin and provoking it in you but under grace not justifying or pardoning as properly and immediately meant here though they were under that also but sanctifying and healing And the Apostle maketh the objection following What then shall we sin because we are not under the Law because the phrase was ambiguous and might be thought to have such a sense as the Libertines make it to have to wit to do every thing as we please without any controule by any Law and in this explication we shall see a sweet harmony in the context The third instance is Rom. 7. especially in the beginning of the Chapter but the answer to the former Objection will also cleare this because the apostle continueth in the same matter explaining what it is to be under the Law by a similitude from a wife married to an husband who is bound to him so long as he liveth but when he dyeth she is free Now in the reddition of the similitude there is some difference among Commentators but I take it thus Sin which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions that is the former husband the soul had and lusts they are the children hereof but when we are regenerated then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soul so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband but sin is properly the husband And if you will say the Morall Law you must understand it in this sense only as it doth inflame the heart to all evil therefore the Apostle as is well observed by the Learned doth not say the Law is dead but we are dead for indeed the Law is never so much alive as in the godly who do constantly obey it live accordingly to it This will also serve for that place Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the spirit ye are not under the Law That is under the Law forcibly compelling Austin distinguisheth of four states of men those who are Ante legem and these commit sin without knowledge of it Sub lege and these commit it with some fighting but are overcome Sub gratia and these do fight and shall overcome and Sub pace these we may make to be those in heaven LECTVRE XXIIII DEUT. 4. 13. And he declared unto you his Covenant which he commanded you to performe even ten Commandements c. I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule and now come to consider of it as a Covenant that so the whole Law may be fully understood I shall not be long upon this though the matter be large and difficult though the subject be like the Land of Canaan yet there are many Gyants and great Objections in the way I will rather handle it positively then controversally for I do not finde in any point of Divinity learned men so confused and perplexed being like Abrahams Ram hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head as here That I may methodically proceed observe the context of this verse and the scope Moses being to perswade the people of Israel to obedience of the Law useth severall forcible arguments As ver 1. The good and profitable issue thereof which is to live and possesse the land not as if this mercy were only temporall but by this was represented eternall life in heaven A second argument is from the perfection of it that nothing may be added to it or detracted from it The third argument is from the great wisdome and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations there being no people under the sun that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had and if that be true of Bernard
righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistle and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousnesse of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but we find this in effect Deut 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the righteousnesse which is by faith And Beza doth acknowledg that that which Moses speakes of the Law Paul doth apply to the Gospel Now how can this be reconciled unlesse wee distinguish between the generall doctrine of Moses which was delivered unto the people in the circumstantiall administrations of it and the particular doctrine about the Law taken in a limited and abstracted consideration Onely this take notice of that although the Law were a Covenant of grace yet the righteousnesse of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth But the Papists they make this difference The righteousnesse of the Law saith Stapleton Antid in hunc locum is that which we of our owne power have and doe by the knowledge and understanding of the Law but the righteousnesse of faith they make the righteousnesse of the Law to which wee are enabled by grace through Christ So that they compare not these two together as two contraries in which sense Paul doth but as an imperfect righteousnesse with a perfect But we know that the Apostle excludeth the workes of David Abraham that they did in obedience to the Law to which they were enabled by grace so necessary is it in matter of justification and pardon to exclude all workes any thing that is ours Tolle te à te impedis te said Austine well Nor doth it availe us that this grace in us is from God because the Apostle makes the opposition wholy between any thing that is ours howsoever we come by it and that of faith in Christ Having thus explained the state of the Question I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative And thus I shall order them The first shall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters God on one part and the Israelites on the other God did not deale at this time as absolutely considered but as their God and Father Hence God saith hee is their God and when Christ quoteth the commanders hee brings the preface Heare O Israel the Lord thy God is one And Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites belong adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the promises Now unlesse this were a covenant of grace how could God be their God who were sinners Thus also if you consider the people of Israel into what relation they are taken this will much confirme the point Ezod 19. 5 6. If yee will obey my voice you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me and yee shall be unto me a kingdom of Priests and an holy Nation which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Gospel If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of works how could such an agreement come betweene them 2. If we consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant it must needs be a Covenant of grace for there we have remission and pardon of sinne whereas in the Covenant of workes there is no way for repentance or pardon In the second Commandment God is described to be one shewing mercy unto thousands and by shewing mercy is meant pardon as appeareth by the contrary visiting iniquity Now doth the Law strictly taken receive any humbling debasing of themselves no but curseth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded and that with a full and perfect obedience Hence Exod. 34. ver 6 7. God proclaimeth himselfe in manifold attributes of being gracious and long-suffering keeping mercie for thousands and forgiving iniquity and this he doth upon the renewing of the two Tables whereas if the people of Israel had been strictly held up to the Law as it required universall perfect obedience without any failing they must also necessarily have despaired and perished without any hope at all 3. If we consider the duties commanded in the Law so generally taken it must needs be a Covenant of grace for what is the meaning of the first Commandment but to have one God in Christ our God by faith For if faith had not been on such tearmes commanded it had been imposible for them to love God or to pray unto God Must not the meaning then be to love and delight in God and to trust in him But how can this be without faith through Christ Hence some urge that the end of the commandment is love from faith unfeigned but because Scultetus doth very probably by commandment understand there The Apostles preaching and exhortation it being in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostle using the word in that Epistle in the same sense I leave it It 's true there is no mention made of Christ or faith in the first Commandment but that is nothing for love also is not mentioned yet our Saviour discovers it there and so must faith and Christ be supposed there by necessary consequence And can we think that the people of Israel though indeed they were too confident in themselves yet when they took upon themselves to keep and observe the Law that the meaning was they would do it without any spot or blemish by sinne or without the grace of God for pardon if they should at any time break the Law 4. From the Ceremoniall Law All Divines say that this is reduced to the Morall Law so that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the second Commandment Now we all know that the Sacrifices were evangelicall and did hold forth remission of sinns through the blood of Christ If therefore these were commanded by the Morall Law there
and poured out his pirit giving eternall life as plentifully under the Law as under the Gospel But to aske why he did thus would be as presumptuous and arrogant as to aske why he created the world no sooner If the School-master teach the new beginner in another way then he doth the proficient in study no man doth blame his wisedom As in the Paschall Lamb they were to eate the flesh but to throw away the bones so in all matters of religion those things that are revealed and profitable we may feed upon and whatsoever is abstruse and difficult we may let goe Praestat per Deum nescire quia ipse non revelaverit quà m per hominem scire quia ipse praesumpserit Tert. de Anima Now to conclude I come to give the difference between the Law strictly taken as requiring exact and perfect obedience promising eternall life upon no other termes and the Gospel strictly taken as a solemne promulgation of Christ and his benefits to a broken sinner And the first is this The Law in some measure of it is made knowne by naturall light and so agreeable to a naturall conscience I say in some measure for there is much of the duty of the Law that is unknown to naturall consciences yet the most externall and outward duties are knowne and accordingly as the truth of them is discerned by naturall light so the will doth joyne with them as good to be done though not in a godly way But it is otherwise with the Gospel for the very truth of it must be wholy revealed by God so that no naturall acumen in the world could ever excogitate this wonderfull remedy of justification and salvation by Christ And as it is thus above knowledg so the heart is more averse from this way And by this you may see why it is such an hard thing to beleeve why the people of God are so hardly perswaded when loaden with guilt to roule their soules upon Christ The reasorris there is nothing in his natural conscience to further him in this duty Press a man against murder theft adultery here is naturall conscience joyning for this duty but urge him to beleeve this is altogether above nature Hence it is also that naturally we seek to be justified by the works we do so that to be justified by faith is another way then corrupted nature in us or right nature in Adam would have inclined unto Therefore let not the people of God be so discouraged in their agonies and combats about their unbeliefe Let them know that a little degree of faith is of great consequence And if he said that Christi anity was perpetua naturae violentia a perpetuall violence offered to nature this is most sure in a matter of faith We are as froward in rejecting of a promise as stubborn in refusing of a command The second difference is in the object matter The Law holdeth forth a perfect righteousness and will not admit of any other but the Gospel that condescends and brings pardon through Christ And this is the maine difference and in which they can never be made one Now the Papists Arminian Socinian and others do overthrow this grand and maine difference holding justification by works under some notion or other whereas the Apostle maketh an immediate opposition If of faith then not of works The Apostle doth not distinguish of works of nature and works of grace or works of grace perfect imperfect but speaketh absolutely so doth also exclude that subtile opinion of making faith to justifie as a work for the Apostle making an opposition between faith and works must necessarily take faith under such a notion as cannot be a work And this truth is that which is the pillar of the Church of God and that which differenceth us from Jews Turks Papists and many Hereticks The third difference is from the manner of obtaining the good thing promised He that shall obtain eternall life by the Law hath it of debt and by way of justice Rom. 4. 4. Not as if Adam in the state of innocency could have merited at Gods hands or as if God became in strict justice a debtor seeing Adam was beholding to God for all but in some sense it would have been so Hence boasting would not then have been excluded eternall life being the reward of those holy works which he should have done but now all is of grace through Christ our righteousness is meerly Gods indulgence not the holiness that is in us but the sinn pardoned makes us acceptable So that the broken contrite heart can never sufficiently admire the grace and goodness of God in the Gospel-way And no marvell if so be that Paul is so frequently ravished with the considerations thereof This may well be caIled good newes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our hearts were spiritually affected we should say How beautifull are the feet of those that bring these glad tydings The fourth difference is in respect of the subject The Law strictly taken is only for those who have a perfect and holy nature therefore it 's a Covenant as you heard of friendship and not of reconciliation so that there is no necessity of any Mediatour Indeed there is good use of urging it to proud Pharisaicall men to bring them out of love with themselves to gross sinners that their hearts might be broken seeing the curses belong to them yea to the godly also to teach them the faire copy they are to write after but in respect of justification by it and eternall life there is none can have that benefit but such who shall be found perfectly holy It was not Moses but the serpent that did heale so it is not the Law but Christ that can comfort broken hearts stung with sin The Priest and the Levite they pass by not pitying of him But now the Subject to whom the Gospel is given is a broken hearted sinner one that feeleth himselfe ready to be covered over with all confusion one that lyeth wounded in conscience crying for some oyle to be poured into his wounds Oh! what miserable comforters then must all Popish and Socinian Doctors be who will advise the sinfull tempted man to seek out works for the Law which is as uncomfortable as to bid a sick diseased man get some of the Philosophers stone or to eat a piece of a Phoenix and then and not till then he shall be in ease Lastly The Law differeth in the forme of it from the Gospel The Law is conditionall but the Gospel absolute I find this Question a very troublesome one Whether the Gospel be absolute or no Whether Gospel be a doctrine of works Whether it hath precepts or threatnings Now the meaning of this Question is not Whether the Gospel be so absolute that it requireth not faith as a condition Or Whether it be so absolute as that it excludeth all repentance and holiness he is an infant in Scripture that
thinketh so But Whether the Gospel doth promise eternall life to a man for any dignity intention merit work or any disposition in us under any distinction or notion whatsoever or only to faith apprehending Christ Now the Answer is that if we take the Gospel largly for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles there is no question but they pressed duty of mortification sanctification threatning those that do not so but if you take the Gospel strictly then it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sins through Christ not requiring any other duty as a condition or using any threatning words thereunto But then it may be demanded To which is repentance reduced Is it a duty of the Law or a duty of the Gospel Of the Law strictlytaken it cannot be because that admitteth none Must it not therefore be of the Gospel And I find in this particular different either expressions or opinions and generally the Lutheran Divines do oppose the Antinomians upon this very ground that the Gospel is not a Sermon of repentance nor doth exhort thereunto but it must be had from the Law which doth prepare them for Christ I shall therefore because this was the foundation of Antinomianisme and it had it's rise from hence handle the next day this Question Whether the Gospel doth command repentance or no. Or Whether it be only from the Law LECTVRE XXVII ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the Law of faith I Proceed to the handling of this Question Whether the Gosspel preach repentance or no seeing this made the great commotion at first between the Orthodox and Antinomians I shall dispatch this in few words 1. The word Repentance is taken sometimes largely and sometimes strictly when it is taken largely it comprehends faith in it and is the whole turnign unto God Rev. 2. 5. sometimes it is used strictly for sorrow about sin and so distinguished from faith Thus they repented not that they might beleeve and faith and repentance are put together Now all the while a man hath trouble and sorrow for sin without faith it is like the body without the soul yea it carrieth a man with Cain and Judas into the very pit of dispair when a man seeth how much is against him and not how much is for him it cannot but crush and weigh him down to the ground The tears of repentance are like those waters very bitter till Christ sweeten them 2. Consider this that the Law was never meerly and solely administred nor yet the Gospel but they are twins that are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery Howsoever strictly taken there is a vast gulf of opposition between each other yet in their use they become exceeding subservient and helpfull mutually It is not good for the Law to be alone nor yet the Gospel Now the old Antinomians they taught repentance by the Gospel only that so the Law might be wholly excluded thus they did not consider what usefull subserviencie they had to one another The Law directeth commandeth and humbleth The Gospel that comforteth refresheth and supporteth And it is a great wisedom in a Christian when he hath an eye upon both Many are cast down because they only consider the perfection of the Law and their inability thereunto on the other side some grow secure and loose by attending to free-grace only I do acknowledge that free-grace will melt the heart into kindness and the fire will melt as well as the hammer batter into pieces but yet even this cannot be done without some use of the Law 3. Therefore being there is such a neer linck between both these in their practicall use we need not with some learned men make two Commandements of the Gospel only to wit the command to beleeve and the other command to repent neither need we with others make these commands Appendices to the Gospel but conclude thus that seeing Faith and Repentance have something initial in them and something consummative in them therefore they are both wrought by Law and Gospel also so that as they say there is a legal repentance and an evangelical so we may say there is a legal faith which consists in believing of the threatnings the terrours of the Lord and there is an evangelical faith which is in applying of Christ in the Promises So that legal faith and repentance may be called so initially and when it is evangelical it may be said to be consummate If therefore you aske Whether Faith and Repentance be by the Law or by the Gospel I answer It is by both and that these must not be seperated one from the other in the command of these duties Hence fourthly unbeliefe is a sin against the Law as well as against the Gospel Indeed the Gospel that doth manifest and declare the object of justifying faith but the Law condemneth him that doth not believe in him therefore Moses and the Law is said to bear witness of Christ and to accuse the Jews for refusing the Messias The Law that requireth belief in whatsoever God shall reveal The Gospel that makes known Christ and then the Law is as it were enlightened by the Gospel doth fasten a command upon us to beleeve in Christ This is true if you take the Law strictly and seperately from Moses his administration of it but if you take it largely as it was delivered by Moses then faith in Christ was immediately commanded there though obscurely because as is proved it was a Covenant of grace You see then that as in the transfiguration there was Christ and Moses together in glory so likewise may the Law and the Gospel be together in their glory and it is through our folly when we make them practically to hinder one another Though all this be true yet if the Gospel be taken strictly it is not a doctrine of repentance or holy works but a meere gracious promise of Christ to the broken heart for sin and doth comprehend no more then the glad tydings of a Saviour It is true learned men do sometimes speak otherwise calling Faith and repentance the two Evangelicall commands but then they use the word more largely for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles but in a strict sense its only a promise of Christ and his benefits And in this sense we may say the Gospel doth not terrifie or accuse Indeed there are wofull threatnings to him that rejecteth Christ yea more severe then to him that refused Moses but this ariseth from the Law joyned in practicall use with the Gospel And in this sense also it is said to be the savour of death unto many This ariseth not from the nature of the Gospel but from the Law that is enlightened by the Gospel so that he being already condemned by the Law for not beleeving in Christ he needeth to be condemned again by the Gospel If you say May not the sufferings
God and us 3. Because it performes all duties by way of compensation merit That there is a God may be known by the light of Nature The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The Patriarchs did not offer sacrifices by the light of Nature but God revealed his will to Adam to be so worshipped Originall sin can onely be truly knowne by Scripture-light Matth. 17. 12. expounded Communion of all things no precept of Nature and the Apostles practise of it was only occasionall not binding to posterity God is more off ended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens There is in man a natural power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance Man by the power of nature wholly unable to performe good actions 1. Because our natures are full of sin and corruption 2. Because grace and conversion are the work of God 3. Because glory is to be given to God onely not to our selves Nature of it self cannot dispose for justification or sanctification and the reasons why There are and may be some preparatory and antecedaneous works upon the heart before justification or sanctification Determination to one kind of acts takes not away liberty A threefold liberty Determination to sinne takes not away that delight in sinne which man is inevitably carried out unto Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given unto it The outward act of a commandement may be preformed by the power of Nature Whatsoever meere naturall men doe is sin before God because 1. The act wants faith the person reconciliation with God 2. It proceeds not from a regenerate nature 3. 'T is not done in reference to Gods glory 4 There is no promise annexed to any act that wants faith There is in mans nature a passive capacity of grace which is not in stones and beasts To presse a duty and yet to acknowledge Gods grace or gift to do it is no contradiction Mans inability to observe Gods precepts maketh not voâ—d the nature of the precepts because this in ability proceeded from mans owne fault A thing said to be impossible three waies Gods commands though they be not a measure of our power may serve to convince humble c. Necessity of sinning hinders not the delight and willingnesse man hath in sin and consequently God may reprove him for his transgressions * Cap. 5. l. 3. Ethic. ad Nicom Though God works all our good in us yet exhortations are the instrument wherby he works it How conversion and repentance may be said to be our acts Gods working upon the heart of a sinner for conversion excludes not mans working Though wicked men cannot but sinne in praying and hearing yet they are bound to these duties God doth not bind himself to this way * Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi stupiditas ut major in infantos cadere non postit The tree of knowledge why so called God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heaâ—â— did give a positive law 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor Aug. The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adams posterity Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also Adam before his sin was immortall A thing may be said to be immortall foure wayes The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Image and likenesse signifie one and the same thing An Image consists in likenesse to another pattern after which it is made A Four-fold image The image of God in Adam consisted in the severall perfections and qualifications in his soul 1. In his Understanding was exact knowledge of divine and naturall things 2. His Will was wonderfully good and furnished with many habits of goodnesse 3. In his Affections regularity and subjection 2. The image of God consisted in a freedome from all misery and danger 3. It consisted in that dominion and soveraignty Adam had over the creatures That righteousnesse and holiness fixed in Adam was 1. Originall 2. Universall 3. Harmonious 4. A perfection due unto him upon supposition of the end wherunto God made him Righteousness was a perfection sutable and connaturall to Adam Adam had power to beleeve so farre as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject Repentance as it flowes from a regenerate nature reductively the image of God Gods image not fully repaired in us in this life Doctr. The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid down then the covenant off grace after the fall That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant appeares 1. From evil threatned and good promised 2. Because his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall God enters into Covenant with man by way of condescension makes promises unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him God deales with man by way of covenant not of power 1. To indeare himself unto him 2. To incite man to more obedience 3. To make this obedience more willing and free The Covenant God made with Adam was of works not of faith God entring into Covenant with Adam must be looked upon as one already pleased with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Gods Covenant did suppose a power and possibility in Adam to keep it 1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered as did flow from him as aliving creature endued with a rational soul 2 The principle and habit of righteousnesse was naturall to Adam but help from God to persevere supernaturall Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation but of conservation in righteousnesse The obedience of Angels may be said to be imperfect negatively not privatively Christs incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency in respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace The imputation of Christs righteousness doth not inferre that therefore we are more
must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and dark And it is to be observed that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision and even all the Ceremoniall Law as the Morall yea the first rise of the cōtroversie was from that Now all must confesse that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ or grace but rather included them And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative It is true the Jewes they rested upon these and did not look to Christ but so do our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appear from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with blood And this did signifie Christ for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortall man When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour it is to be understood typically even as the sacrifices did wash away sin typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or real some think Christ likewise was the Angell spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse 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 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 do them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of works 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 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 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 do urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas they 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 sin 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 seem to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all do 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 do you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministery of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as seperated 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 LECTVRE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously 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 selfe confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applyed 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 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 works 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 speaks 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 do 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 works but the Publican that looketh upon himselfe only as a sinner and so judgeth himself he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they mean by works here in the Text those which go before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foul errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We do 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 ask 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 although the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some sense the Law and Gospel do oppose and thwart one another And this matter I undertake because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered It is an errour saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit cap. 9. in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousness and saith he this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary meaning by the Law that rule of life whereby God doth require of us that which is his own given us no ground of hope unlesse in every respect we keep the Law but saith he quum de totâ lege agitur when he speaks of the Law more largely taken he makes them to differ only in respect of clearer manifestation or as Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant they differ not essentially but as we say the old and new Moon Therefore before I come to shew the exact opposition take notice of two things as a foundation first that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old-Testament the New and then they differ onely gradually for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God though Socinians deny it although indeed in respect of the Gospel it may comparatively be said no spirit and no grace as when it is said The holy Ghost was not yet given because it was not so plentifully given Or secondly the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law only this is the reason why we cannot say The Spirit of God or grace or life is by the Law because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes it is not of the Law but of the grace of God or the Gospel Therefore whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together we must be sure to make the parallel equall and to take them so oppositely that we may not give the one more advantage or lesse then the nature of it doth crave and desire In the second place therefore in this controversie still remember to carry along with you the different use of the word Law as to this point for if you take Law strictly and yet make it a Covenant of grace you confound the righteousnesse of works and of faith together as the Papists do but if largely then there may be an happy reconciliation For the better opening of this consider that as the word Law so the word Gospel may be taken largely or strictly We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word or whether it be used any where of a sorrowfull message as well as glad newes as some say in two places it is used 1. Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers Non infrequens esse specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi It is enough to our purpose that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely and sometimes more strictly when it 's taken largely it signifieth the whole doctrine that the Apostles were to preach Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel i. e. the doctrine preaching of Christ Or else it is taken most strictly as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings c. In which strict sence it 's called the Gospel of peace and of the grace of God So that you see the word Law is taken differently largely and strictly thus also is the word Gospel Now it 's a great dispute Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel or no I finde the Lutherans Antinomians and Calvinists to speak differently but of that when we take the Law and Gospel in their most strict sense Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument that the Protestants do deny the necessity of good works because they hold that the Gospel hath no precepts or threatnings in it lib. 4. de Justif cap. 2. And he urgeth against them that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is said to be revealed from heaven in the Gospel but as is to be shewed he there doth mistake the state of the controversie taking the word Gospel in a larger sense then they intended Thus on the other side Islebius the father of the Antinomians he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue but from the Gospel that to preserve the purity of doctrine we ought to resist all those who teach the Gospel must not be preached but to those who are made contrite by the Law whereas the right unfolding of the word Gospel would make up quickly those breaches The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception I shall first shew the opposition between the Law and the Gospel taken in their large sense and then in the limited sense And this is worth the while because this is the foundation of all our comfort if rightly understood Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New-Testament or Covenant wherein the Learned speak very differently and as to my apprehension most confusedly I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New which Austin Chemnitius and others urge because it presseth the old man condemneth that whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new