to obedience p. 38. 7 Wherein are good works necessary p. 39. 8 Whether the Law have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man p. 53. 9 How the Law is said to be written in mans heart p. 58. 10 Wherein the Law of Nature doth consist p. 60. 11 Of what use is the light of Nature p. 66. 12 Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to judge in matters of faith or to prescribe divine worship p. 71. 13 Whether a man can by the light of Nature and by the consideration of the creatures come to know there is a God p. 74. 14 Whether the mysterie of the Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature p. 77. 15 Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to salvation p. 77. 16 Whether that be true of the Papists which hold that the sacrifices the Patriarchs offered to God were by the meere light of Nature p. 79. 17 Whether originall sin can be found out by the meere light of Nature or whether it is onely a meere matter of faith that we are thus polluted p. 79. 18 What is the meaning of that grand rule of Nature which our Saviour repeateth That which you would not have other men doe to you doe not you to them p. 80. 19 Whether the practice of the Apostles making all their goods common was according to the precept of Nature and so binding all to such a practice p. 80. 20 What a man cannot doe by the power of Nature p. 83 84. 21 Whether there are any antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace p. 86. 22 Whether a man by the power of 〈◊〉 be able to work any good thing page 84. 23 Why God would give a positive law to Adam beside the naturall law in his heart p. 103. 24 Whether the positive law to Adam would have obliged all his posterity p. 105. 25 How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eat of the forbidden fruit p. 106. 26 Whether Adam was mortall before the eating of the forbidden fruit p. 107. 27 Whether upon this threatning Thou shalt die can be fixed that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soule as well as body p. 108. 28 Whether Image or Likenesse doe signifie the same thing p. 110. 29 Wherein doth this Image consist p. 112. 30 What are the properties of that righteousnesse and holinesse that was fixed in Adams heart p. 115. 31 Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam or no. p. 117. 32 Whether justifying faith was then in Adam or whether faith and repentance are now parts of that Image p. 117. 33 Whether the Image of God shal be restored to us in this life p. 118 34 Whether God did enter into covenant with Adam p. 119. 35 How God can be said to covenant or enter into a promise with man p. 123. 36 Why God will deale with man in a covenant may rather thâ—n in a meere absolute supreme way p. 124. 37 Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam while innocent so as to be considered either in his naturalls or supernaturalls p. 129. 38 Whether Christ did intervens in his help to Adam so that hee needed Christ in that estate p. 129. 39 Whether the tree of Life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam or no. p. 132. 40 Whether there was any revelation unto Adam of a Christ p. 133. 41 Whether the state of reparation be more excellent then that in innocency p. 133. 42 Whether we may be now by Christ said to be more righteous then Adam p. 134. 43 Whether that which God requireth of us be greater then that demanded of Adam in the state of innocency p. 135. 44 Whether Adams immortality in the estate of innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 136. 45 What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is and what kind of lawes there are and why it 's called the Morall Law p. 140. 46 Whether this Law repeated by Moses be the same with the law of nature implanted in us p. 140. 47 Why God did then and not sooner give this Law unto his people p. 141. 48 Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God p. 142. 49 Why God gave the Morall Law p. 143. 50 Whether the ten Commandements as given by Moses doe belong to and bind us Christians or no. p. 156. 51 Whether Christ did adde any thing unto the Law p. 169. 52 Whether Christ did forbid all swearing p. 177. 53 Whether under the Gospel death or any capitall punishment may be inflicted for some offences p. 180. 54 Whether the Law be an instrument of true sanctification p. 187. 55 Whether Christ have abrogated the Morall Law p. 199. 56 Whether the Law was a Covenant that God made with his people of Israel p. 220. 57 Whether the Law be a Covenant of grace p. 224. 58 Wherein the Law and Gospel doe oppose or differ from each other under which is handled the false differences between the Law and Gospel made by Anabaptists Papists and Antinomians p. 229. 59 Why God appointed such various and different administrations p. 246. 60 Whether the Gospel preach repentance or no. p. 250. 61 Whether the Law command faith p. 252. 62 How Christ is the end of the Law p. 256. Errata PAge 6. line 12. reade and did not lead to Christ p 14 l. 23. leave out and then thou shalt live p. 21. l. 26. r. divisions p. 36. l. 31. r. overthrow it p. 40 l. 4. upward leave out of this speech p. 41. l. 3. r. Translator addeth those worde p. 43. l. 7. r. Durand p. 57. l. 28. r. found Interpreters p. 81. l 4. upward r. were not tyâ—d by arguments p. 92. l. 8. r. which is in me p. 121. l. 20. leave out an haire p. 1â—1 l. 2 upward next to piece r. as a totall p. 149. l. 7. r. absolutely p. 177. l. 7. upward r. as infants p 208. l. 18. r. Gods love p. 224. l. 17. r. command VINDICIAE LEGIS OR The Vindication of the Law called MORALL LECTURE I. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully THis Epistle to Timothy may be called Paul's The Text opened Directory for the Church of God and in the first place he enjoyneth Timothy to preserve the Truth against all false teachers as he himselfe doth in all his Epistles Though he derived much hatred upon his person thereby yet this was his comfort and glory as Hierome wrote to Austin when he had vindicated the Truth against Pelagians Quod signum majoris gloriae est omnes haeretici te detestantur His injunction to Timothy begins ver 3. Charge them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus translates it not to follow another doctrine as if it did belong to the followers but the words afterwards Teachers of the Law doe plainly refute that Now the word may
wholsome lawes to govern men by and 2dly By their practice at least of some of them according to those lawes And secondly internally by their consciences in the comfort or feare they had there Observat There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts And if this be not abolished but that a beleever is bound to follow the direction and obligation of it how can the Antinomian thinke that the Morall Law in respect of the mandatory power of it ceaseth Now because I intend a methodicall Tractate of the severall kindes of Gods Law you might expect I should say much about Lawes in generall but because many have written large Volumes especially the School-men and it cannot be denyed but that good rationall matter is delivered by them yet because it would not be so pertinent to my scope I forbeare I will not therefore examine the Etymology of the words that signifie a Law whether Lex in the Latine come of legendo because it was written to be read though that be not alwaies necessary or of ligando because a law binds to obedience or of deligendo because it selects some precepts nor concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek whether it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is improbable or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it destributes to every one that which is right neither the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some make to come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instruct and teach others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth a disposition or compiling of things together as lawes use to be In the next place I will not trouble you with the desinition of a law whether it be an act or habit or the soule it selfe onely this is good to take notice of against a fundamentall errour of the Antinomian about a law in generall for they conceive it impossible but that the damning act of a law must be where the commanding act of a law is and this is frequently urged as I shewed the last time Therefore observe that there are only two things goe to the essence of a law I speak not of externall causes and that is first Direction secondly Obligation 1. Direction therefore a law is a rule hence the Law of God is compared to a light And Prov. 20. 27. there is a notable expression of the law of Nature It 's a candle of the Lord searching the inwards of the belly So it is observed that the Chaldee word for a law is as much as light The second essentiall constitute of a law is Obligation for therein lyeth the essence of a sinne that it breaketh this law which supposeth the obligatory force of it In the next place there are two Consequents of the Law which are ad bene esse that the Law may be the better obeyed and this indeed turneth the law into a covenant which is another notion upon it as afterwards is to be shewen Now as for the sanction of the Law by way of a promise that is a meere free thing God by reason of that dominion which he had over man might have commanded his obedience and yet never have made a promise of eternall life unto him And as for the other consequent act of the law to curse and punish this is but an accidentall act and not necessary to a law for it cometh in upon supposition of transgression and therefore as we may say of a Magistrate He was a just and compleat Magistrate for his time though he put forth no punitive justice if there be no malefactors offending so it is about a law a law is a compleat law obliging though it doe not actually curse as in the confirmed Angels it never had any more then obligatory and mandatory acts upon them for that they were under a law is plaine because otherwise they could not have sinned for where there is no law Rom. 4. 15. there is no transgression If therefore the Antinomian were rectified in this principle which is very true and plaine he would quickly be satisfied but of this more in another place But we come to the particulars of the doctrine the pressing of which will serve much against the Antinomian Therefore for the better understanding of this Law of Nature consider these particulars 1. The nature of it in which it doth consist and that is in those The Law of Nature consists in those common notions which are ingraffed in all mens hearts common notions and maximes which are ingraffed in all mens hearts and these are some of them speculative that there is a God and some practicall that good is to be imbraced and evill to be avoided and therefore Aquinas saith well that what principles of Sciences are in things of demonstration the same are these rules of nature in practicals therefore we cannot give any reasons of them but as the Sun manifests it selfe by its owne light so doe these Hence Chrysostome observeth well that God forbidding murder and other sins giveth no reason of it because its naturall but speaking of the seventh day why that in particular was to be observed he giveth a reason because on the seventh day the Lord rested not but that the seventh day is morall as some have denyed but because it s not morall naturall onely morall positive as the Learned shew 2. The difference of its being in Adam and in us This is necessary Some fragments onely of this Law left in us to observe for it was perfectly implanted in Adams heart but we have onely some fragments and a meere shadow of it left in us The whole Law of Nature as it was perfectly instructing us the will of God was then communicated to him and howsoever God for good reasons hereafter to be mentioned did give besides that law of Nature a positive law to try his obedience yet the other cannot be denied to be in him seeing he was made after Gods image in righteousnesse and holinesse and otherwise Adam had been destitute of the light of reason and without a conscience Therefore it 's a most impudent thing in Socinus to deny that Adam had any such law or precept and that hee could not lye or commit any other sin though hee would for it may not be doubted but that if Adam had told a lye or murdered Eve it had been a sin as well as to eate of the forbidden fruit 3. The naturall impression of it in us We have it by nature it 's Those common notions in which this law consists are in us by nature not a superadded work of God to put this into us This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus who out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God doth labour to shew that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us and that we have none of these by nature in
are and why it 's called the Morall Law It is plaine by Exod. 20. and cap. 21. All the lawes that the Jewes had were then given to Moses to deliver unto the people onely that which we call the Morall Law had the great preheminency being twice written by God himselfe in tables of stone Now the whole body of these lawes is according to the matter and object divided into Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall We will not meddle with the Queries that may be made about this division We may without any danger receive it and that Law which we are to treat upon is the Morall Law And here it must be acknowledged that the different use of the word Morall hath bred many perplexities yea in whatsoever controversie it hath been used it hath caused mistakes The word Morall or Morally is used in the controversie of the Sabbath in the question about converting grace in the doctrine of the Sacraments about their efficacy and causality and so in this question about a Law what makes it morall Now in this present doubt howsoever the word Morall beareth no such force in the notation of it it being as much as that which directeth and obligeth about manners and so applicable even to the Judiciall and Ceremoniall and these are in a sense commanded in the Morall Law though they be not perpetuall as to denote that which is perpetuall and alwaies obliging yet thus it is meant here when we speak of a thing morall as opposite to that which is binding but for a time 3. Whether this law repeated by Moses be the same with the Law The Law of Moses differs from the law of Nature of Nature implanted in us And this is taken for granted by many but certainly there may be given many great differences between them for First if he speak of the Law of Nature implanted in Adam at 1. In respect of power of binding first or as now degenerated and almost defaced in us whatsoever is by that law injoyned doth reach unto all and binde all though there be no promulgation of such things unto them But now the Morall Law in some things that are positive and determined by the will of God meerly did not binde all the nations in the world for howsoever the command for the Sabbath day was perpetuall yet it did not binde the Gentiles who never heard of that determined time by God so that there are more things expressed in that then in the law of Nature Besides in the second place The Morall Law given by God 2 The breach of the Law given by Moses is a greater sin then the breach of the law of Nature doth induce a new obligation from the command of it so that though the matter of it and of the law of Nature agree in many things yet he that breaketh these Commandements now doth sin more hainously then hee that is an Heathen or Pagan because by Gods command there cometh a further obligation and tye upon him In the third place in the Morall Law is required justifying 3. The Morall Law requires justifying faith and repentance and contains more particulars in it then the law of Nature faith and repentance as is to be proved when I come to speak of it as a Covenant which could not be in the Law given to Adam so the second Commandment requireth the particular worship of God insomuch that all the Ceremoniall Law yea our Sacraments are commanded in the second Commandement it being of a very spirituall and comprehensive nature so that although the Morall Law hath many things which are also contained in the law of Nature yet the Morall Law hath more particulars then can be in that Hence you see the Apostle saith he had not knowne lust to be sin had not the Law said so although he had the law of Nature to convince him of sin 4. Why it was now added The time when it was added appeareth The Law was given when the Israelites were in the wildernes and not sooner by the 18. Chapter to wit when the people of Israel were in the Wildernesse and had now come to their twelfth station in Mount Sinai That reason which Philo giveth because the Lawes of God are to be learnt in a Wildernesse seeing there we cannot be hindred by the multitude is no waies solid Two reasons there may be why now and not sooner or later God gave this Law First because the people of Israel coming out of Egypt had 1. Because being come out of Egypt they were to be restrain'd of their impiety and idolatry defiled themselves with their waies and we see while they were in their journie in the Wildernesse what horrible grosse impieties they plunged themselves into therefore God to restraine their impietie and idolatry giveth them this Law to represse all that insolency so Rom. 5. and Gal. 3. The Law came because of transgressions But Secondly I conceive the great and proper reason why God at 2. Because they were now to grow into a Common-wealth this time rather then another gave the Law was because now they began to be a great people they were to enter into Canaan and to set up a Common-wealth and therefore God makes them lawes for he was their King in a speciall manner insomuch that all their lawes even politicall were divine and therefore the Magistrates could not dispense in their lawes as now Governours may in their lawes of the Common-wealth which are meerly so because then they should dispensare de jure alieno which is not lawfull This therefore was the proper reason why God at this time set up the whole body of their Lawes because they were now to grow into a Common-wealth Hence Josephus calls the Common-wealth of the Jewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a place where God was the Governour 5. Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God And The Law not onely was but was publickly preached in the Church before Moses certainly hee that should thinke this Law was not in the Church of God before Moses his administration of it should greatly erre Murder was a sin before as appeareth by Gods words to Cain yea the very anger it selfe that goeth before murder So all the outward worship of God as when it 's said This began man to call upon the Name of the Lord so that the Church of God never was nor ever shall be without this Law And when we say the Law was before Moses I doe not meane only that it was written in the hearts of men but it was publikely preached in the ministry that the Church did then enjoy as appeareth by Noah's preaching to the old world and Gods striving with men then by his word So that we may say the Decalogue is Adams and Abrahams and Noahs and Christs and the Apostles as well as of Moses Indeed there was speciall reason as you heard why at that time there should be a speciall
could be no obligation from the matter had it not been revoked and abolished then the Morall Law given by Moses must still oblige though it did not binde in respect of the matter unlesse we can shew where it is repealed For the further clearing of this you may consider that this was the great Question which did so much trouble the Church in her infancy Whether Gentiles converted were bound to keep up the Ceremoniall Law Whether they were bound to circumcise and to use all those legall purifications Now how are these Questions decided but thus That they were but the shadowes and Christ the fulnesse was come and therefore they were to cease And thus for the Judiciall Lawes because they were given to them as a politick bodie that polity ceasing which was the principall the accessory falls with it so that the Ceremoniall Law in the judgement of all had still bound Christians were there not speciall revocations of these commands and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law for the matter of that is perpetuall and there are no places of Scripture that doe abrogate it And if you say that the Apostle in some places speaking of the Law seemeth to take in Morall as well as Ceremoniall I answer it thus The question which was first started up and troubled the Church was meerly about Ceremonies as appeareth Act. 15. and their opinion was that by the usage of this Ceremoniall worship they were justified either wholly excluding Christ or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law Now it 's true the Apostles in demolishing this errour doe ex abundanti shew that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law but neither of the Morall Law doe justifie but that benefit we have by Christ onely Therefore the Apostles when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute they doe it in respect of justification not obligation for the maine Question was Whether the Ceremoniall Law did still oblige and their additionall errour was that if it did oblige we should still be justified by the performance of those acts so that the Apostles doe not joyne the Morall and Ceremoniall Law in the issue of obligation for though the Jewes would have held they were not justified by them yet they might not have practised them but in regard of justification and this is the first Argument The second Argument is from the Scripture urging the Morall Argum. 2 Law upon Gentiles converted as obliging of them with the ground and reason of it which is that they were our fathers so that the Jewes and Christians beleeving are looked upon as one people Now that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted as a commandement heretofore delivered is plaine When Paul writeth to the Romans chap. 13. 8 9. he telleth them Love is the fulfilling of the Law and thereupon reckons up the commandements which were given by Moses Thus when he writeth to the Ephesians that were not Jewes cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother because it 's the first Commandement with Promise Now this was wholly from Moses and could be no other way And this is further evident by James chap. 2. 8 10. in his Epistle which is generall and so to Gentiles converted as well as to the Jewes Now mark those two expressions v. 8. If you fulfill the royall Law according to the Scriptures that is of Moses where the second Table containeth our love to our neighbour and then v. 10. He that said Doe not commit adultery said also Doe not kill where you see he makes the Argument not in the matter but in the Author who was God by Moses to the people of Israel And if you say Why should these Commandements reach to them I answer because as it is to be shewed in answering the objections against this truth the Jewes and we are looked upon as one people Observe that place 1 Cor. 10. The Apostle writing to the Corinthians saith Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea c. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians but only because since they beleeved they were looked upon as one The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Argum. 3 Sabbath day This is a full Argument to me that the Morall Law given by Moses doth binde us Christians for supposing that opinion which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox that the Sabbath day is perpetuall and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement we cannot then but gather that the Commandements as given by Moses doe binde us For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materia by reason of the matter and ratione ministerii by reason of the ministry for the seventh day cannot binde from the matter of it there being nothing in nature why the seventh rather then the fifth should oblige but only from the meer Command of God for that day and yet it will not follow that we are bound to keep the Jewish seventh day as the Learned shew in that controversie Now then those that deny the Law as given by Moses must needs conclude that we keep the Sabbath day at the best but from the grounds of the New Testament and not from the fourth Command at all And howsoever it be no argument to build upon yet all Churches have kept the morall Law with the Preface to it and have it in their Catechismes as supposing it to belong unto us And when those prophane opinions and licentious doctrines came up against the Sabbath Day did not all learned and sound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandements Therefore that distinction of theirs The Morall Law bindes as the Law of Nature but not as the Law of Moses doth no wayes hold for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature in regard of the determinate time but hath its morality and perpetuity from the meere positive Commandement of God The fourth Argument from Reason that it is very incongruous Argum. 4 to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetuall duty How probable can it be that God delivering the Law by Moses should intend a temporary obligation only when the matter is perpetuall As if it had been thus ordered You shall have no other gods but till Moses his time You shall not murder or commit adultery but till his ministry lasteth and then that obligation must cease and a new obligation come upon you Why should we conceive that when the matter is necessary and perpetuall God would alter and change the obligations None can give a probable reason for any such alteration Indeed that they should circumcise or offer sacrifices till Moses ministry lasted only there is great reason to be given and thus Austin well answered Porphyrius that objected God was worshipped otherwayes in the old Testament then in the New That
primarily and what is occasionally in the Law ibid. That the Law hath a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man p. 53 The derivation of the word Lex p. 59 Two things necessary to the essence of a Law ibidem How the Law becomes a Covenant ib. The division of Lawes in generall and why the morall Law is so called p. 140 The Law of Moses differs from the Law of Nature in three respects p. 140. 141 Why the Law was given in the wildernesse ibidem That the Law was in the Church before Moses p. 142 Three ends of the promulgation of the Law p. 143 The Law of Moses a perfect Rule p. 144 Three differences betwixt the Judiciall Ceremoniall and Morall Law p. 147 Generall observations about the Law and the time of the delivery of the Law pag. 147. 148. 149. c. Three observations concerning the preparation to the delivery of the Law p. 148 Whether the law as given by Moses do belong to us Christians p. 157. proved p. 159. Objections answered p. 163 Though the Law as given by Moses did not belong to Christians yet the doctrine of the Antinomians holds not page 156 Christ in the Gospel onely interprets the old Law and doth not adde new proved by four reasons p. 169. 170 The Law is spirituall in the Old Testament as in the New proved by eight instances p. 171. 172. c. The Law may be instrumentall to worke sanctification and conversion page 187. 3. Cautions about it ib. 188. proved by six reasons p. 191. 192. Objections answered p. 193 The Law is established three waies by the Gospel p. 201 Three affections belonging to a Law p. 203 Three parts in the Law p. 204 Those phrases considered of the Law and without the Law and under the Law and in the Law p. 216 A two-fold being under the Law p. 217 False differences given by some betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 232 Law and Gospel united in the Ministery p. 251 Law opposed and oppugned two waies Directly Interpretatively page 264 Law opposed interpretatively three waies p. 265 Law by men abrogated or made void three waies ibid. A three-fold liberty p. 87 A three-fold light p. 112 M MInistery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects p. 257 Moses in his zeal breaking the Tables vindicated from rashnesse and sinfull perturbation p. 151 The opinion of souls-mortality confuted p. 108. 109 Adam was under the morall Law in innocency p. 61 What 's meant by the word morall p. 140 Morall Law bindes two waies p. 158 That the morall Law perpetually continues a rule and Law proved by four Reasons p. 212. 213 Objections against the continuance of the morall Law answered p. 214 Morall Law having Christ for the end of it may be considered two waies p. 256 Marcionites and Manichees the first Heretickes that opposed the Law p. 265 N WHat is meant by the word Nature in Scripture p. 58 There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts ibid. Wherein the law of Nature consists p. 59 Foure bounds of the law of Nature p. 62 Light of Nature considered in a three-fold respect p. 65. 68. 69 A three-fold use of the light of Nature p. 66 The light of Nature obscured three waies p. 69 The light of Nature is necessary though insufficient in religious and morall things p. 69. It 's necessary two waies p. 70. See p. 83. 84. 89 The light of Nature no Judge in matters of faith p. 71 It 's no prescriber of divine worship ibid. Natures insufficiency described in three reasonings p. 72 Th◠Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature p. 77 How farre nature will reach in some other things p. 79. 80. 81 Man by the power of Nature wholly unable to performe good actions proved by 3. arguments p. 84 Nature cannot dispose or prepare a mans selfe for justification or sanctification p. 85. proved by foure reasons ibid. All workes of meere Nature are sins before God proved by foure Reasons p. 90 The Etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 59 O COrrupt glosses of the Pharisees concerning oathes reproved p. 178 Promissory oathes dangerous ibidem The obedience of the Saints implyes obedientiam servi though not obedientiam servilem p. 13 Christs active obedience to the Law imputed to beleevers p. 261 The obligation of the law of Nature is from God p. 62 Gods promises are obligations to himself not to us p. 123 Why the old Covenant is called old p. 231 How an opinion may corrupt the life p. 47 Whether Originall sin may be found out by the meere light of Nature p. 79 P PAlemon converted from his drunkenness by Plato's Lecture which he came to deride p. 67 Papists make three false differences betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 233 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification p. 42 The perpetuity of the obligation of the law of Nature p. 63 A distinction of a three-fold piety confuted p. 78 The Law of God by Moses is so perfect a rule that Christ added no new precept to it p. 171 Different phrases used concerning the Ceremoniall law which are never applied to the Morall law p. 212 The opinion of the Pharisees concerning the Law p. 170 Why besides the Morall law a Positive law was given to Adam in innocency Two Reasons p. 103. 104 The Positive law did lay an obligation on Adams posterity p. 105 The seven Precepts of Noah What the Thalmudists speake concerning them p. 137 It 's a generall Rule that the pressing of morall duties by the Prophets in the Old Testament is but as an explanation of the Law p. 172 The Primitive Christians held it unlawfull to kill in defence p. 185 Capitall punishments lawfull in the New Testament p. 181. 182 To what purpose are exhortations to them who have no power to obey p. 69 Popery in a great part Antinomianisme page 266 R WHy a Reason is rendred by God for the fourth Commandement rather then others p. 59 Remission of sinnes under the law plenary as well as under the Gospel proved against the Antinomian p. 236. 237. 238 Repentance how taken p. 250. 251 Resemblances of the Trinity confuted p. 77 Every Rule hath vim praecepti as well as doctrinae p. 5 To doe a duty because of reward promised is not slavish and unlawfull p. 124 Revenge forbidden in the Old Testament as strictly as in the New p. 185 Righteousnesse of the Law and Gospel differ much p. 5 Whether we may be now said by Christ to be more righteous then Adam in innocency p. 134 The Law of Retaliation Matth. 7. 12. opened p. 80 The properties of the righteousnesse at first fixed in Adams heart p. 116 Whether righteousnesse were naturall to Adam p. 117 S THe Sabbath in innocency not typicall of Christ p. 133 Satan cannot work beyond a morall perswasion as God doth in
a man according to their opinion The same Author againe pag. 5. Hee dare not trust a beleever to walke without his keeper the Law as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor in Newgate who would kill and rob if his Jaylor were not with him Thus they are onely kept within the compasse of the Law but are not keepers of it Yet at another time the same Author calls it a slander to say that they deny the Law Now who can reconcile these contradictions Nor is this shufling and uncertainty any new thing for the old and first Antinomian did many times promise amendment and yet afterwards fell to his errour againe after that he condemned his errour and recanted his errour in a publick Auditory and printed his revocation yet when Luther was dead hee relapsed into that errour so hard a thing is it to get poyson out when it s once swallowed downe In the fourth place we come to lay down those things that may cleare the meaning of the Apostle and first know that humane Authors who yet have acknowledged the help of precepts doe speake thus much of a righteous man onely to shew this that he doth that which is righteous for love of righteousnesse not for feare of punishment As Aquinas said of his love to God Amo quia amo amo ut amem Thus Seneca Ad Legem esse bonum exiguum est Its a poore small thing to be good onely according to the law And so Aristotle lib. 3. Polit. cap. 9. sheweth how a righteous man would be good though there were no law as they say of a Magistrate he ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a living law Thus Socrates said of the Civill Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato Polit. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not fit to command or make lawes for those that are good These Sayings are not altogether true yet they have some kinde of truth in them Hence it was that Antisthenes said A wise man was not bound by any lawes And Demonax told a Lawyer that all their lawes would come to nothing for good men did not need them and wicked men would not be the better for them And as the Heathens have said thus so the Fathers Hierome What needs the Law say to a righteous man Thou shalt not kill to whom it 's not permitted to be angry Yet we see David though a righteous man needed this precept But especially Chrysostome even from these words doth wonderfully hyperbolize A righteous man needs not the Law no not teaching or admonishing yea he disdaines to be warned by it he doth not wait or stay to learne of it As therefore a Musician or Grammarian that hath these arts within him scornes the Grammar or to goe to look to the rules so doth a righteous man Now these are but hyperbole's for what godly man is there that needs not the Word as a light that needs it not as a goad Indeed in heaven the godly shall not need the Law no more shall they the Gospel or the whole word of God 2. There are three interpretations which come very neere one another and all doe well help to the clearing of the Apostle 1. Some learned men lay an emphasis in the word Made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not made to a godly man as a burden he hath a love and a delight in it Lex est posita sed non imposita He doth not say Justi The Law to a godly man is a delight not a burden non habent legem aut sunt sine lege sed non imminet â—is tanquam flagellum it 's not like a whip to them The wicked wish there were no Law and cry out as he Utinam hoc esset non peccare The righteous man is rather in the Law then under it It 's true the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall doth signifie no more then to lye or be or is therefore in Athenaus Vlpianus was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of his frequent questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where such or such a word might be found but yet sometimes it signifieth to be laid to a thing as to destroy it so Matth. 3. 10. The axe is laid to the root of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the originall Now this is to be understood so farre forth as he is righteous otherwise the things of God are many times a burden to a godly man Let us not oppose then the works of the Law and the works of the Spirit Grace and Gospel for the same actions are the workes of the Law ratione objecti and the works of the Spirit ratione efficientis Indeed the Scripture opposeth Grace and Workes and Faith and Workes but in a cleane other sense then the Antinomian in time is to be shewed The second interpretation is of the damnatory and cursing part The godly are under the desert of the curse but not the actuall condemnation of the Law of the Law The Law is not made to the beleever so as he should abide under the cursing and condemning power of it and in this sense we are frequently denied to be under the Law It 's true the godly are under the desert of the curse of the Law but not the actuall curse and condemnation Nor doth it therefore follow that there is no Law because it doth not curse for it 's a good rule in Divinity à remotione actus secundâ— in subjecto impediti non valet argumentum ad remotionem actûs primi from the removall of an act or operation the argument doth not hold to the removing of the thing it selfe as it did not follow The fire did not burne the three Worthies therefore there was no fire God did hinder the act And if that could be in naturall agents which work naturally how much rather in morall causes such as the Law is of condemnation which works according to the appointment of God So then the Law is not to curse or condemne the righteous man The last interpretation is that the Law was not made because The Law in the restraining power thereof was not made for the righteous but unâ—â—ghteous of righteous men but unrighteous Had Adam continued in innocency there had not been such a solemne declaration of Moses his Law for it had been graven in their hearts Therefore though God gave a positive law to Adam for the try all of his obedience and to shew his homage yet he did not give the Morall Law to him by outward prescript though it was given to him in another sense and so the phrase shall be like that Proverb E malis moribus bonae leges nascuntur Good lawes arise from evill manners And certainly lawes in the restraining and changing power of them upon the lives of men are not for such who are already holy but those that need to be made holy and so it may be like that
world Now evill is not so much evill as good is good sin is not so much sin as God is God and Christ is Christ If therefore a profane man because of his carnall heart can love his sin though it cost him hell because of the sweetnesse in it shall not the godly heart love the things of God because of the excellency in them But these things may be more enlarged in another place LECTURE VI. ROM 2. 14 15. For when the Gentiles which know not the law do the things of the law by nature these having not the law are a law unto themselves which shew the work of the law written in their hearts BEfore I handle the other places of Scripture that are brought by the Antinomians against the Law it is my intent for better methods sake and your more sound instruction to handle the whole theology of the Law of God in the severall distributions of it and that positively controversally and practically and I shall begin first with the law of Nature that God hath imprinted in us and consider of this two waies 1. As it is a meere law and secondly As it was a covenant of works made with Adam And then in time I shall speak of the Morall Law given by Moses which is the proper subject of these controversies The Text I have read is a golden Mine and deserveth diligent digging and searching into Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us answer these Questions 1. Who are meant by the Gentiles here It is ordinarily known Who meant by Gentiles that the Jewes did call all those Gentiles that were not Jewes by way of contempt as the Greeks and Romans called all other nations Barbarians Hence sometimes in the Scripture the word is applyed to wicked men though Jewes as Psal 2. Why doe the heathen rage It may be interpreted of the Pharisees resisting Christ Indeed the Jewes will not confesse that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes is any where applyed to them but this is very false for Genes 17. Abraham is there said to be the father of many nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes therefore they must either deny themselves to be Abraham's seed or else acknowledge this word belonging to them But generally it signifieth those that had not the Lawes of Moses nor did live by them Therefore Gal. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live like a Gentile is not to observe the Lawes of Moses and in this sense it is to be taken here for the Apostles scope is to make good that great charge upon all mankinde both Jew and Gentile that naturally they are wholly in sin and God being no accepter of persons will destroy the one as well as the other And whereas it might be thought very hard to deale thus with the Gentile because no law was delivered unto him as unto the the Jew the Apostle answereth that objection in this place But grant it be understood of such Gentiles then there is a greater question whether it be meant of the Gentiles abiding so or the Gentiles converted and turned beleevers for that the Apostle speakes of such most of the Latine Interpreters both ancient and moderne doe affirme and so the Greek Father Chrysostome and Estius a learned Papist doe think there are so many arguments for it that it 's certaine I confesse they bring many probable reasons but I will not trouble you with them this seeemeth a strong argument against them because the Apostle speaks of such who are without a law and a law to themselves which could not be true of Gentiles converted we take the Apostle therefore to speake of Gentiles abiding so but in this sense there is also a dangerons exposition and a sound one The poysonous interpretation is of the Pelagians who understand the law written in their hearts in the same sense as it is used Jerem 33. even such a fulfilling of the law which will attaine to salvation and this they hold the Heathens by the law and help of nature did sufficiently But this is to overthrow the doctrine of Grace and Christ Therefore the said interpretation is of the Gentiles indeed but yet to understand the law written in their hearts onely of those relicts of naturall reason and conscience which was in the Heathens as is to be proved anon The 2d. Question is easily answered How they are said to be How the Gentiles are said to be without a law without a law to wit without a written law as the Jewes had so that we may say they had a law without a law a law written but not declared The 3d. Question In what sense they are said to doe the things of How said to do the things of the law by nature the law and that by nature To doe the things of the law is not meant universally of all the Heathens for the Apostle shewed how most of them lived in the Chapter before nor secondly universally in regard of the matter contained in the law but some externall acts as Aristides and Socrates with others And here it s disputed Whether a meere Heathen can doe any worke morally good But wee answer No for every action ought to have a supernaturall end viz. the glory of God which they did not aime at therefore we doe refuse that distinction of a morall good and theologicall because every morall good ought to be theologicall The distinction of Morall and Theologicall good rejected they may do that good matter of the law though not well And as for the manner how by nature those Interpreters that understand this Text of Gentiles beleevers say Nature is not here opposed to Grace but to the law written by Moses and therefore make it nature inabled by grace but this is shewed to be improbable By nature therefore we may understand that naturall What is here meant by Nature light of conscience whereby they judged and performed some externall acts though these were done by the help of God The next Question is How this Law is said to be written in their hearts You must not with Austine compare this place with that gracious promise in Jeremy of God writing his law in the hearts of his people There is therefore a two-fold writing in the A two-fold writing of the Law in mens hearts and which here meant hearts of men the first of knowledge and judgement whereby they apprehend what is good and bad the second is in the will and affections by giving a propensity and delight with some measure of strength to do this upon good grounds This later is spoken of by the Prophet in the covenant of Grace and the former is to be understood here as will appeare if you compare this with Chapt. 1. 19. The last Question is How they declare this Law written in their The Law written in mens hearts two waies hearts And that is first externally two waies 1. By making good and
us And a godly man in his Book of Temptations holdeth the same opinion Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion but he goeth upon a false supposition that the Apostle his scope is to compare a Gentile supposed onely to doe the Law and not asserted to doe it before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law but not a doer of it therefore to debase the Jew he saith the Apostle speaketh conditionally to this purpose If an Heathen should keep the Law though he be not circumcised yet he would be preferred before you not saith he that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such doe and therefore presseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood and is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gentiles c. But his supposition is false for the Apostles scope is to shew that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemne him because hee hath a law in himselfe as appeareth verse 12. As for the other consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Erasmus render it cum fecerint yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood as well as the Subjunctive It cannot therefore be true which hee saith that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature that if they were true it would necessarily justifie all Pelagianisme I shall not speak of his many arguments against naturall principles and knowledge of a God for he doth in effect at last yeeld to it 4. The extent of it And here it 's very hard to measure out the bounds of the law of Nature for some have judged that to be condemned by the law of Nature which others have thought the law of Nature approveth so true is that of Tertullian Legens Naturae opiniones suas vecant They call their opinions the law of Nature There are foure waies of bounding this law 1. Some make it those generall things wherein man and beast agree Foure bounds of the law of Nature as defence of it self and desire of life but by this meanes that of naturall honesty and righteousnesse would be excluded for a beast is not capable of any sin or obligation by a law And howsoever that be much disputed upon Why God would have the beast killed that killed a man yet to omit the thoughts of many about it that was not because a beast could be tyed by a law but God to shew the horridnesse of the fact would have the very instrument punished 2. Some bound it by the custome of Nations that is jus Gentium but that is so diversified that a sin with some was a vertue with others 3. Some doe bind it by reason in every man but this is very uncertaine and one mans reason is contrary to anothers and one mans conscience is larger then anothers even as it is with measures in divers countries though they have the fame name as a bushell c. yet they are different in quantity one is larger then another Lastly Others bound it by the will of God declared and manifested first to Noah in seven precepts and afterwards to Moses in the ten Commandements but these extend the law of Nature not onely to first principles but conclusions also deduced from thence 5. The obligation of it when the law of Nature doth bind And The obligation of the law of Nature is from God that is from God the authour of it God onely is under no law Every beleever though justified by Christ is under the Morall Law of Moses as also the law of Nature but now this law of Nature doth not so properly bind as it's mans reason or conscience as that it is the Vicegerent of God or a command from him and thus Cain by the law of Nature found a tye upon him not to sin and guilt because he did sin in murdering his brother although there was no Morall Law as yet given It is true indeed our Divines doe well reprove the Papists for calling all that time from Adam to Moses a state or law of Nature and this the Papists doe that therefore to offer sacrifice unto God may be proved from the law of Nature whereas those sacrifices being done in faith had the word of God otherwise we were bound still to offer Lambs or Kids to God which they deny 6. The perpetuity of this obligation This Law can never be abrogated The obligation of the law of Nature is perpetuall and immutable And herein we may demand of the Antinomian Whether the law of Nature doe bind a beleever or no Whether he be bound to obey the dictates of his naturall conscience Suppose a beleever hath his naturall conscience dictating to him This sin he may not doe is he not obliged hereunto not onely from the matter for that he grants but as it is a law and command of God implanted in his sonle I know there is a difference between the law of Nature and the ten Commandements as may be shewed hereafter but yet they agree in this that they are a rule immutable and of perpetuall obligation Therefore think not that because he dyed to free you from the curse of the Law that therefore you are freed from the obedience unto the law naturall or delivered by Moses To deny this is to deny that a beleever is bound to obey the sure dictates of a naturall conscience I know we are not alwaies bound to follow what conscience suggests for that is obscured and darkened but I speak of those dictates which are naturally knowne Other particulars as The insufficiency of it to direct in worship as also to save men I doe put off and make application of what hath been delivered Use 1. Of Instruction against the Antinomian who must needs overthrow the directive and obligative force of the law of Nature as well as that of Moses Doth not even Nature teach you saith the Apostle Now if a man may not care for Moses teaching need he care for Nature teaching It is true I told you sometimes they grant the Law to be a rule but then afterwards they speak such things as are absolutely inconsistent with it There were some as Wâ—ndelinus reports Swencfeldians that held a man was never truly mortified till he had put out all sense of conscience for sin if his conscience troubled him that was his imperfection he was not mortified enough I should doe the Antinomians wrong if I should say they deliver such things in their books but let them consider whether some of their Positions will not carry them neer such a dangerous rock For if the Law have nothing to doe with mee in respect of the mandatory part of it then if I be troubled for the breach of it it is my weaknesse because I am not enough in Christ Vse 2. Of Reproofe to those who live against this Law Sins that are against the law of Nature doe most terrifie How many live in such sins
so be it could be proved as Zwinglius held that Christ did communicate himself to some Heathens then it were another matter I will not bring all the places they stand upon that which is mainely urged is Act. 10. of Cornelius his prayers were accepted and saith Peter Now I perceive c. But this proceedeth from a meere mistake for Cornelius had the implicite knowledge and faith of Christ and had received the doctrine of the Messias though he was ignorant of Christ that individuall Person And as for that worshipping of him in every Nation that is not to be understood of men abiding so but whereas before it was limited to the Jewes now God would receive all that should come to him of what Nation soever There is a two-fold Unbeliefe one Negative and for this no Heathen is damned He is not condemned because he doth not beleeve in Christ but for his originall and actuall sinnes Secondly there is Positive Unbeliefe which they onely are guilty of who live under the meanes of the Gospel The fourth Question is Whether that be true of the Papists which hold that the sacrifices the Patriarchs offered to God were by The Patriarchs did not offer sacrifices by the light of Nature but God revealed his will to Adam to be so worshipped the meer light of Nature For so saith Lessius Lex Naturae obstringit suadet c. the Law of Nature both bindeth and dictateth all to offer sacrifices to God therefore they make it necessary that there should be a sacrifice now under the New Testament offered unto God And upon this ground Lessius saith it is lawfull for the Indians to offer up sacrifices unto God according to their way and custome And making this doubt to himselfe How shall they doe for a Priest He answereth that as a common-wealth may appoint a Governour to rule over them and to whom they will submit in all things so may it appoint a Priest to officiate in all things for them This is strange for a Papist to say who doteth so much upon succession as if where that is not there could be no ministery Now in this case he gives the people a power to make a Priest But howsoever it may be by the light of Nature that God is religiously to be worshipped yet it must be onely instituted worship that can please him And thus much Socrates an Heathen said That God must onely be worshipped in that way wherein he hath declared his will to be so Seeing therefore Abel and so others offered in faith and faith doth alwaies relate to some testimony and word it is necessary to hold that God did reveale to Adam his will to be worshipped by those externall sacrifices and the oblations of them It is true almost all the Heathens offered sacrifices unto their gods but this they did as having it at first by heare-say from the people of God and also Satan is alwaies imitating of God in his institutions And howsoever the destructive mutation or change of the thing which is alwaies necessary to a sacrifice doth argue and is a signe of subjection and deepest humiliation yet how should Nature prescribe that the demonstration of our submission must be in such a kind or way The fifth Question is Whether originall sin can be found out by Originall sin can onely be truely known by Scripture-light the meere light of Nature Or Whether it is onely a meere matter of faith that we are thus polluted It is true the learned Mornay labours to prove by naturall reason our pollution and sheweth how many of the ancient Platonists doe agree in this That the soule is now vassalled to sense and affections and that her wings are cut whereby shee should so are up into heaven And so Tully he saith Cum primùm nascimur in omni continuò pravitate versa mur much like that of the Scripture The Imagination of the thoughts of a mans heart is onely evill and that continually But Aristotle of whom one said wickedly and falsely that he was the same in Naturals which Christ was in Supernaturals he makes a man to be obrasa tabula without sin or vertue though indeed it doth incline ad meliora Tully affirmeth also that there are semina innata virtutum in us onely wee overcome them presently Thus also Seneca Erras si tecum nasci vitia putas supervenerunt ingesta sunt as I said before Here we see the wisest of the Philosophers speaking against it Hence Julian the Pelagian heaped many sentences out of the chiefest Philosophers against any such corruption of nature But Austine answered It was not much matter what they said seeing they were ignorant of these things The truth is by nature we may discover a great languishment and infirmity come upon us but the true nature of this and how it came about can onely be knowne by Scripture-light Therefore the Apostle Rom. 7. saith he had not knowne lust to be sin had not the Law said Thou shalt not lust The sixth Question is What is the meaning of that grand rule of Matth. 19. 12. expounded Nature which our Saviour also repeateth That which you would not have other men doe to you doe not you to them Matth. 7. 12. It is reported of Alexander Severus that he did much delight in this saying which hee had from the Jewes or Christians and our Saviour addeth this that This is the Law and the Prophets so that it is a great thing even for Christians to keep to this principle Men may pray and exercise religious duties and yet not doe this therefore the Apostle addeth this to prayer so that wee may live as wee pray according to that good rule of the Platonish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How would this subdue all those proud envious censorious and inimicitious carriages to one another But Communion of all things no precept of Nature and the Apostles practice of it was onely occasionall not binding to posterity now when wee speake of doing that to another which wee would have done to our selves it is to be understood of a right and well-regulated will not corrupted or depraved The seventh Question is Whether the practice of the Apostles making all their goods common was according to the precept of Nature and so binding all to such a practice For there have been and still are those that hold this But now that communion of all things is not jure Naturae appeareth in that theft is a sin against the Morall Law which could not be if division of goods were not according to the law of Nature Indeed by Nature all things were common but then it was Natures dictate to divide them as Aristotle sheweth in many reasons against Plato What would have been in innocency if Adam had stood whether a common right to all things or a divided propriety I speak of goods is hard to say But as for the practice of the Church of Jerusalem
be manifested to be obedience For as Austin speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austin doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbeliefe were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor August if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who art thou O man c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall Adam had power to stand Therefore the proper essentiall end of this commandement was to exercise Adams obedience Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousnesse in God Bellarmine doth confesse that God may doe that which if man should doe he sinned as for instance Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would doe it if it lay in his power but God is not so tyed both because he hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free he might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if he should hinder all evill things there would many good things be wanting to the world for there is nothing which some doe not abuse The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held that God had a serious will of saving all men but not an efficacious will of saving all Thus differing from the Arminians on one side and from some Protestant Authours on the other side and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious is this of Gods to Adam seriously willing him to stand and withall giving him ability to stand yet it was not such an efficacious will as de facto did make him stand for no question God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven But concerning the truth of this their assertion we are to enquire in its time For that errour much spreads and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid that Christ intentionally died and so offereth his grace to all But for the matter in hand if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency yea and efficiency in some sense no question but God did seriously will his standing when he gave that commandement And howsoever Adam did fall because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him whereby he was inabled to obey God To deny Adam that help which should indeed make him stand was no necessary requisite at all on Gods part But secondly that of Austins is good God would not have suffered sin to be if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill not that God needed sin to shew his glory for he needed no glory from the creature but it pleased him to permit sin that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations we will say as Austin to the Hereticks Illi garriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity we must conclude that this positive command was universall and that Adam is here taken collectively for although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given yet it was not personall but to Adam as an head or common person Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him for whether it be in him or in as much as all have sinned it cometh to the same purpose for how could all be said to have sinned but because they were in him And this is also further to be proved by the commination In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby Besides the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law besides the naturall for Adam doe also inferre for Adams posterity It is true some Divines that doe hold a positive law would have been yet seem to be afraid to affirme fully that the posterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very same commandement of eating the forbidden fruit but I see no cause of questioning it Now all this will be further cleared when we come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sin unto his posterity And indeed if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing there could be no more reason why Adams sin should be made ours
would be no heaven nor hell as yet he is bold and confesseth there is none till the resurrection Now if this be so then how shall that be true that the heaven must containe Christ till he come This doth exceedingly puzzle him but he takes the heaven for the place where the Sun is and concludes peremptorily as if he had been in the same also that Christs glorified body is in the Sun Without doubt saith he pag. 33. he must be in the Sun and saith he pag. 34. The Sun may be called well the right hand of God by which through Christ in him we live and move and have our being and there speaketh nothing but darknesse about light as that the Sun is the vaile to keep off the light of Christs body from us which otherwise would be so glorious we could not see it and live But how dare any man make this interpretation The heavens must containe him that is he must be in the Sun till be come to restitution of all things The naming of these things is confutation enough onely this I brought as in a passage meerly to see what cause we have to pray to God to keep us from our selves and our owne presumptuous thoughts Vse 1. Of Instruction that a law may be made even to a righteous man and that threatnings may be menaced to a man who yet is not under the actuall curse and damning power of the Law Use 2. To see the goodnesse of God that tryed Adam but with one positive precept This should be a caution against multitude of Church precepts how did Austin complaine of it and Gerson in his time Vse 3. How the Divell doth still prevaile over us with this temptation of knowledge There were Hereticks called Gnostici and Ophitae This desire to eate of the tree of knowledge hath brought much ignorance and errour I know there are many people so sottish and stupid that the Divell could never intice them with this temptation They account it a trouble even the knowledge of meere necessary things to salvation but when men desire to know above that which is written this is a dangerous precepice Vse 4. To take heed of our selves If Adam thus perfect did faile in a command of tryall about so little a matter take heed where you set gun-powder seeing fire is in your heart Compare this of Adams with that of Abraham what a vast difference Austin thanks God that the heart and temptation did not meet together LECTURE XII GENES 1. 26. And God said Let us make man in our image after our likenesse YOu have heard of a two-fold law given to Adam one by outward prescript for tryall and exhortation of his obedience the other by implantation which was the Morall Law and of that at this time When God had made all other things then man the immediate and proxime end was created it being Gods goodnesse to make no living creature before he provided the food and nourishment of it And thus man the last but the choicest externall and visible piece of his workmanship is created but in a great difference from the former for his creation is brought in by way of deliberation and advice Let us make man which words denote 1. the excellency of the man to be made 2. the mysterie of the Trinity is here implyed for howsoever the Jewes would have it that he spoke to the Angels or the inanimate creatures or others that the word is used in the plurall number for dignity sake as they shew examples in the Hebrew yet we rather joyne with those that doe think it implyed not indeed that this text of it selfe can prove a Trinity for the plurall number proveth no more three then foure or two but with other places that doe hold forth this doctrine more expresly so that in the words you have the noble and great effect Man the wise and powerfull efficient God the excellent and admirable patterne or exemplar After our image God made man after his image and so implanted it in him that that image could not be destroyed unlesse man destroyed himself not that this image was his naturall substance and essence but it was a concreated perfection in him Now for the opening of this truth let us consider these particulars 1. Whether image or likenesse doe signifie the same thing For Image and likenesse signifie one and the same thing the Papists following the Fathers make this difference That image doth relate to the naturalls that man hath his rationall soule with the naturall properties and likenesse to the gratuitalls or supernaturalls which were bestowed upon him Now the orthodox especially the Calvinists though they deny not but that the soule of a man with the faculties thereof may be called the image of God secondarily and remotely herein differing from the Lutherans who will not acknowledge thus much so that principally and chiefly it be placed in righteousnesse and holinesse yet they say this cannot be gathered from the words for these reasons 1. Because verse 27. where there is the execution of this decree in the text there onely likenesse is named and Gen. 9. there is onely image named and Gen. 5. Adam is said to beget Seth after his image and likenesse where such a distinction cannot be made And this is so cleare that Pererins and Lapide doe confesse it Nor is that any matter because they are put downe as two Substantives for that is usuall with the Hebrewes when the later is intended onely as an Adjective so Jerem. 29. 11. To give you an end and expectation that is an expected end so here image and likenesse that is an image most like 2. It s considerable in what an image doth consist Now the An Image consists in likenesse to another patterne after which it is made A Four-sold image Learned they speak of a four-fold image or likenesse 1 Where there is a likenesse in an absolute agreement in the same nature and thus the Son of God is the expresse image of the Father 2. By participation of some universall nature so a man and a beast are alike in their common nature of animality 3. By proportion onely as the Pilot of a ship and the Governour in the common-wealth are alike 4. By agreement of order when one thing is a patterne for another to be made after it and this is properly to be an image for two things go to the nature of an image 1. Likenesse and then 2. that this likenesse be made after another as a patterne Thus one egge is like another but not a patterne of another so man was made like Angels yet not after their image as the Socinians would have it So that to be made after the image of God implieth a likenesse in us to God and then that this likenesse in us is made after that patterne which is in God And howsoever man is a body and God a spirit yet this image and likenesse may well be in
the positive law For all must necessarily think that the Morall Law implanted in his heart and obedience thereunto was the greatest part of Adams happinesse and holinesse Although we told you disobedience unto that positive precept which was onely for tryall might in some sense be judged more hainous then disobedience to the Morall Law In the next place the image of God did consist in a freedome from 2. The image of God consisted in a freedome from all misery and danger all feare of misery and danger even proportionably as God is without feare And this happinesse is the consequent of his holinesse And if it be true of the image of God repaired in us that it is to make us serve him without feare all the daies of our life how much more must it be verified of Adam in that estate And if you demand how Adam could be without feare seeing he knew he might fall and so become miserable the Answer is to be taken from that state wherein he was created having no guilt within him he could have no feare Even as some learned men say the godly shall remember their sins in heaven yet without shame and sorrow because that glorified nature is not capable of it And this is a reason why Eve was not a friend of the Serpent though it was used by the Divell to speak Lastly this image of God consisted in the dominion and soveraignty 3. It consisted in that dominion and soveraignty Adam had over the creatures he had over the other creatures And this was rather a consequent of this image then part of it for when God had declared his will to make man after his image then he also said he should rule over the rest The Socinians indeed make this the onely ground or particular wherein this image doth consist and therefore hold that the woman was not made after the image of God because she was made in subordination to the man But that is easily answered for although shee was made in subjection to him yet with dominion over the rest of the creatures Now we might adde also that in his body there was something of Gods image as the impassibility of it and the immortality but these things doe not come within my subject We therefore come to shew the properties of this righteousnesse and holinesse that was thus fixed in Adams heart 1. It 's called originall to difference it from actuall holinesse as That righteousnesse and holiness fixed in Adam was we call it originall sin to distinguish it from actuall and therefore the Learned call it originall partly in regard of it selfe because 1. Originall it was the first righteousnesse partly because of Adam who had it as soon as he was created As the Schooles say of originall sin Quà m primum originatur homo originatur itidem peccatum so we may of Adam in his righteousnesse In ortu virtus as the Father said In ortu vitium est and partly in regard of his posterity for it should have been propagated to them 2. Another property of this righteousnesse is That it is universall 2. Universall comprehending the rectitude of all the parts and faculties of the soule so that Adam was for his soule as Absolom is said to be comely for his body from the head to the foot no blemish at all so that this was not a perfection in one part onely but all over as our corruption makes us as hee said of the Martyr wounded in many places totum vulnus 3. It was harmonious there was not onely rectitude in every 3. Harmonious part but a sweet correspondency one with the other there was no rebellion or fight between the inferiour appetite and the understanding Therefore some learned men say This righteousnesse is not to be conceived as an aggregation of severall habits but as an inward rectitude of all faculties Even as the exact temperament of the body is not from any superadded habit but from the naturall constitution of the parts 4. This righteousnesse and holinesse it was a perfection due to 4. A perfection due unto him upon supposition of the end whereunto God made him Adam supposing the end to which God made him If God required obedience of Adam to keep the law and happinesse thereupon it was due not by way of merit but condecency to Gods goodnesse to furnish him with abilities to performe it as the soule of Adam was a due to him supposing the end for which God made him Indeed now it 's of grace to us and in a far different consideration made ours because we lost it Lastly this was to be a propagated righteousnesse for as it is to be proved hereafter God did all this in a way of covenant with Adam as a publike person And howsoever every thing that Adam did personally was not made ours we did not eate in his eating nor drink in his drinking we did not dresse the garden in his dressing of it yet that which he did federally as one in covenant with God that is made ours so his sin and misery is made ours then his righteousnesse and happinesse As it is now By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin so then it would have been by one man righteousnesse and life by righteousnesse Questions to be made 1. Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam or no. Howsoever Righteousness was a perfection sutable and connaturall to Adam some have thought this a meere contention of words and therefore if they were well explained there would be no great difference yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errours for grant this righteousnesse to be supernaturall to Adam as it is to us then 1. it will follow That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason are from the constitution of our nature and so no more sin then hunger and thirst is 2. That free-will is still in us and that we have lost nothing but that which is meerly superadded to us Or they compare this righteousnesse Adam had sometimes to an Antidote which preserves against the deadly effect of poyson sometimes to a bridle that rules the horse so that they suppose mans nature would of it selfe rebell but onely this was given to Adam to check it sometimes to Sampsons haire whereby he had supernaturall strength but when that was cut off he had onely naturall So that by this doctrine man now fallen should be weaker then he was but not corrupted Therefore we must necessarily conclude that this righteousnesse was naturall to him not in-indeed flowing from the principles of nature for so it was of God but it was a perfection sutable or connaturall to him it was not above him as it is now in us As a blind man that was made to see though the manner was supernaturall yet to see was a naturall perfection 2. Whether justifying faith was then in Adam Or Whether faith Adam had power
obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses bind because of Moses so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament is binding so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Though indeed this be denyed by all those that are for the negative Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the observation therof was intended for the Church of God perpetually when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Lawes not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jewes So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes The Morall Law is binding 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it 1. In regard of the matter of it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and doe say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians doe professe they doe not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also doe not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speake not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there
or duty unto it But even as the Prophets before did onely explicate the Law when they pressed morall duties so also Christ and the Apostles when they urge men unto holy duties they are the same commanded heretofore I doe not speak of Sacraments or the outward positive worship which is otherwise then was in the Old Testament they had Circumcision and we have Baptisme No specificall difference of the duties in the old Testament from those of the New but only graduall in their manifestation The Law did not only command the outward duty but required the worship of the heart but of the morall duties required of us It is true in the Old Testament many things were expressed more grosly and carnally which the people for the most part understood carnally yet the duties then commanded were as spirituall as now There is onely a graduall difference in the manifestation of the duties no specificall difference of the duties themselves And that this may appeare the more to the dignity and excellency of the Law I will instance in particulars First The Law of God required the heart-worship and service That this may be understood take this for a generall rule which is not denied by any That when there are any morall duties pressed in the Old Testament the Prophets doe it as explainers of the Law they doe but unfold and draw out that Arras which was folded together before This being premised then consider those places in the Old Testament that call for the heart Thus Pro. 3. 1. Let thine heart keep my commandements So Pro. 23. 26. My sonne give me thine heart So that all the duties then performed which were without the heart and inward man were not regarded God required then heart-prayer and heart-humiliation It s true the people for the most part understood all carnally and grosly thinking the outward duty commanded onely and that is no marvell for doe not people even in these times of the Gospel look to the externall duty not examining whether they pray or humble themselves according as the Word speaks of such duties Thus David was very sensible of his heart-neglect when he prayed Unite my heart to feare thy Name and are not the people of God still under the same temptations They would pray they would humble themselves but oh how they want an heart That is so divided and distracted that if after any duty we should put that question to it as God did to Satan From whence comest thou it would returne Satans answer From compassing the earth 2. It preferred duties of Mortification and Sanctification before 2. The Law preferred inward graces before outward duties religious outward duties This you shall see frequently pressed and inculcated by the Prophets Isaiah 1. how doth God abhorre there all their solemne duties making them abominable even like carrion and all because they did not wash them and make them cleane So David saith A broken and contrite heart it was more then any burnt offering now under the times of the Gospel This is an high duty and few reach unto it Doth not the Apostle reprove the Corinthians for desiring gifts rather then graces and abilities of parts rather then holinesse So that this is an excellent duty prescribed by Gods Law that to be able to mortifie our affections to have sanctified natures is more then to have Seraphicall knowledge and Cherubinicall affections in any duty Who then can be against the preaching of the Law when it s such an excellent and pure rule holding forth such precious holinesse 3. It required all our duties to be done All the duties required by the Law were to be done 1. In faith for who can think that when God required in the first Table having him for their God that hereby was not commanded faith and trusting in him as a God in Covenant who 1. In Faith would pardon sinne How could the Jewes love God or pray unto him acceptably if they had not faith in him Therefore the Law is to be considered most strictly as it containeth nothing but precepts of things to be done in which sense it s sometimes though seldome taken And 2. more largely as it had the Preface and Promises added unto it and so it did necessarily require justifying faith for it cannot be conceived that when God commanded the people of Israel by Moses to worship him and to acknowledge him as their God but that his will was they should beleeve on him as a Father But more of this when wee speak of the Law as a Covenant 2. In love and this is so much commanded by the Law that 2. In Love Christ makes the summe of the Law to be in these two things love of God and of our neighbour Therefore I wonder at the Antinomian who is so apt to oppose the doing of things in love and doing of them by the Law together for doth not the Law of God command every duty to be in love to pray in love to God to beare afflictions in love to God Yea by the law wee are to love God because hee hath given Christ for us for the Law commands us to love God for whatsoever benefits he bestoweth upon us now if we are to love him for temporall benefits much more for spirituall It is true the dispensation of the Law was in a terrible way and did gender to bondage but the doctrine of the Law that was for love and the more any Jew did any thing in love to God the more conformable he was to Gods Law 4. It required such an heavenly heart that we are to love God more Love to God in as great a measure commanded by the Law as by the Gospel then any thing else It did not only require love to God but also it commanded it in such a preheminency as that none under the times of the Gospel can doe an higher duty or expression of love than then was commanded suppose a man be a Martyr will lose his life for Gods cause this is an obedience to the first Commandement When our Saviour saith He that loveth father or mother more then me is not worthy of me he commands no higher thing of any Christian then every Jew was bound to do Hence Levi was so commended because in executing of Justice he knew not father or mother and it must needs be so for what can be more then all and yet God requires all the minde all the heart all the strength not that we were bound to love God in quantum est diligibilis for so God only can love himself but nihil supra aequè or contra 5. It required spirituall motives for all our solemne addresses unto In all our addresses to God it required spirituall motives him There are some men who look upon all the Jewes under the Old Testament as so many bruit beasts that did only minde earthly things and that as children are allured by Apples and Nuts rather
to be as much as the reviving of it as if the soul were ready to swoune away through the troubles thereof but then the Law doth revive them again and comfort them and according to this sense they take Law largely as comprehending the Gospel but it seemeth hard to expound that phrase in such a manner That therefore which the Antinomian doth object against this place is that the Hebrew word doth signifie largely any doctrine and so may comprehend the whole Word of God But this is easily answered First the same Hebrew word is commonly used for the Law when it is strictly taken and therefore this maketh more against them that the word Law in the Hebrew notion doth not signifie such a commanding terrifying and damning thing but rather that which doth instruct and informe But in the next place grant that the Word hath such an extensive and comprehensive sense yet it doth not exclude the Morall Law but doth alwayes include Can any man think when David commends the Law of God that he meaneth all the Word of God but the Morall Law when indeed that was the greatest part of it at that time 3. That opinion which would make Christ not take an instrumentall way for the conversion of men in his first Sermon wherein he was very large that must not be asserted but to hold that the preaching of the Law is not a Medium to conversion must needs be to say that Christ did not take the neerest way to convert his hearers for if you consider that Sermon it 's principally spent in the opening of the Morall Law and pressing the duties thereof and how can we think but that our Saviour judged this profitable and soul-saving matter Nor can I see why it should be said to be only the occasion and not medium if powerfully set home by Gods Spirit 4. If the Law of God have that objectively in it that may work exceedingly upon the heart when set home by Gods Spirit then it may be used instrumentally as well as the Gospel but it hath objectively such a nature in it which doth appeare by Davids approving and delighting in Gods Law by Paul Rom. 7. who delighted in the Law of God When therefore a Minister setteth forth the lovely purity and excellency of the matter of the Law how it resembleth the nature of God why may not the Spirit of God in the exercise hereof raise up the heart and affections to be more and more in love with it If the Heathen said of Vertue that if it could be seen with corporall eyes the beauty thereof would ravish men how much more may this be true of the purity and holinesse of the Law 5. If the Law of God may be blessed after a man is converted to the increase of his grace and holinesse why not then to the first beginning of it That it is for the increase of godlinesse in persons already regenerated is apparent by experience And it is hard to thinke that a Minister having opened any Morall duty of the Law may not pray to God for his Spirit to cloath that word with power and efficacy to change the hearts of hearers 6. If the Ceremoniall Law the Sacraments and Sacrifices were blessed by Gods Spirit while they were commanded to be used for the strengthening and increase of grace notwithstanding the deadly nature of them now then the Morall Law may also be blessed by God for spirituall effects seeing it standeth still in force Let the Vse then of this be by way of admonition that in Vse stead of disputing about or against the Law that we would pray Pray for the benefit of the Law in our souls to have the savoury benefit and fruit of it in our souls Urge God with that Promise of writing his Law in our heart Be thou so farre from being an Antinomian that thou hast thy heart and life full of this holy Law of God Not that the matter of the Law can be the ground of thy Justification but yet it is thy Sanctification What is Regeneration but the writing of the Morall Law in thy heart This is that image of God which Adam was created in Oh therefore that we could see more of this holy Law in the hearts and lives of men that the Law of God might be in mens mindes inlightning them in their wils and affections inflaming and kindling of them LECTURE XXI ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid But we rather establish the Law I Shall in the next place discusse that famous Question about the abrogating of the Morall Law only I must answer to some Objections that are made against the former position That the Law may be used by God in the preaching of it to mans Conversion in the sense explained which if not attended unto may make the assertion seeme harsh and incredible But before I answer the Objections let us consider a great mistake of the Antinomian author Assert of grace pag. 171. where he makes the very ground why they are charged with Antinomianisme to be because they doe not hold the Law to be used by God instrumentally for the conversion of men Certainly this is a great mistake for there are many learned men who hold the work of the Law by the power of Gods Spirit to be no more then preparatory yet for all that doe peremptorily maintaine the use and the obligation of the Law in respect of beleevers Therefore they are not in this respect condemned for that errour Another consideration that I would propound is this * Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ That the work of conversion is not wrought totally in a man without the Gospel for as I told you now in the preaching of the Word there is not meere Law nor meere Gospel but they are to be composed and to be made helpfull to each other and also whatsoever benefit or effect we get in the hearing preaching or meditating upon the Law of God it is to be attributed unto the Covenant of grace in Christ And therefore all these places which attribute conversion and holinesse to the Gospel do not at all make against my Assertion for the Question is not Whether by the power of the Law we come to obey the Law but Whether grace may not use the Precepts or Law preached for the inflaming of our affections so in love with the things commanded that we are thereby made more holy And thus I interpret those Authors that deny the Law to be instrumentall to holinesse that is not animated by Gods Spirit or separated from it I come therefore to consider of those places which are brought against this truth delivered I shall not take all because one answer may serve for many they being built upon the same ground And first the state and Question is obscurely propounded by him for thus
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 and God did dispense grace in the use of them only they were beggarly and empty to such who trusted in them and 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 voide 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 saith 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 Jewes In the second place if we would speake exactly and properly We may say that the Morall Law is mitigated as to our persons but 't is not abrogated 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 is 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 it 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 voide 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 Three parts in the Law 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 self And we have already proved against the Antinomians that one part of the Law may abide when the other doth not The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant but not as it is a Rule 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 workes 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 The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace 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 formal 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 doe not cry out None but Christ None but Christ All this we plead 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 It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth but not as a Law still abiding in respect of the matter of it is a contradiction This is a rock that the adversary hath daily refuge unto The Law saith the Antinomian in the matter of it so farre as I know was never denyed to be the rule according to which a beleever is to walk and live Therefore I take the contrary imputation to be an impudent slander Asser of grace pag. 170. But to reply if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule how can they shelter themselves from their own argument for if the matter oblige
then when a beleever walketh not according to his duty he sinneth and to sinne the curse is due so that this evasion will no wayes help them for still an obligation or bond lyeth upon them which if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law of God Again to say the matter of the Law bindeth but yet not as a Law is a meer contradiction for what is a Law but such an object held forth by the command and will of a superiour Then I demand whether love to God being the object or matter held forth have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should bind According to the Antinomian asserttion it should be true that love to God should bind us because the matter it self is good but not because God willeth us to love him Nay they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver that such things should be obeyed or avoided And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding and not the Law it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good as To love God To honour parents but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution as Keeping of the Lords Day there we must say that the Law binds vi as a Law and not meerly from the matter of the Law 5. The Law is no more abrogated to a beleever under the Old Testament The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Testament then to one under the New This assertion will much discover the falsenesse of the adversaries opinion for they carry it as if the Law were abrogated only to the beleevers under the Gospel Now how can this ever be made good for either they must deny that there were any beleevers under the Old Testament or if they were then they are freed from the Law as much as any now Indeed if you take the Law for the whole administration of the Covenant in the Old Testament we grant that it was pedagoricall and more servile so that a beleever under the Old Testament did not meet with such cleare and evident dispensations of love as a beleever under the Gospel yet in respect of justification and salvation the Law was the same to them as to us and to us as to them We doe not deny but that the administration of the later covenant is farre more glorious then that of the former and that we enjoy many priviledges which they did not then but whatsoever is necessary and essentiall to justification or salvation they were made partakers of them as well as we The ordinary resemblance of theirs and our happinesse is by those two spoken of Numb 13. 23. that bare upon the staffe the cluster of grapes from the land of Canaan If then we speake of the Law in regard of the essentiall parts of it which are directing commanding threatning promising life upon perfect obedience These are either still equally in power or else equally abrogated unto all beleevers whether under the Old or New Testament Let them therefore consider whether the arguments against beleevers subjection under the New Testament be not also equally as strong against those that are under the Old Therefore it is wild Divinity of an Antinomian in Chap. 6. of the Honey-combe of free justification who makes three different estates of the Church one under the Law and another under John Baptist. and a third under the Gospel Now he compareth these together and sheweth how we under the Gospel exceed those of the Law that were godly and among other things there are two notorious falshoods as first That God indeed saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in those of the New But how absurd and contradictory to the Author himself is this assertion For was not that place which they so much urge God seeth not iniquity in Jacob spoken of the Church in the Old Testament And besides if the godly were then in Christ doth it not necessarily follow by his principles that God must see no sinne in them This I bring not as if there were any truth in that opinion of God his seeing no sinne in beleevers whether of the Old or New Testament but only to manifest their absurd contradictions The second difference he makes is That God seeing sinne in those of the Old Testament did therefore punish them and afflict them for sinne but he doth not this under the Gospel Hereupon he sheweth how Moses for a word was strucken with death and so Jonah Vzzah Eli these had sudden punishments upon them Hence also saith he came there terrible famines upon them Now who seeth not how weak and absurd these arguments are For doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of those under the New Testament that some were sick and some did sleep and that they were judged of the Lord were not Ananias and Sapphira stricken dead immediately Are there not famines pestilence and the bloudy warre upon men under the Gospel Besides these assertions are contradictions to themselves for if their arguments from Gods Law and from Christ prove the quite taking away of sinne and the punishments of it then it holdeth as firmly for all beleevers as for some 6. The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part which Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to beleevers and unbeleevers they urge doe not only overthrow the use of it to beleevers but also unbeleevers This also is good to be attended unto for the Apostle in many places where he speakes of the Law as a Schoolmaster and the continuance of it for a time doth not speake comparatively of a beleever with an unbeleever but of the state of the Gospel and the state of the Old Testament so that as a wicked man may not circumcise or take up the sacrifices so neither may he use the Morall Law as commonly the Jewes did which was as distinct from Christ and as if that of it self were able alone to save Therefore I wonder why the Antinomians bring many of their arguments to prove that a beleever is freed from the Law for certainly most of those places will inferre that unbeleevers also under the New Testament are for the Apostle for the most part doth argue against that state of the Church and administrations that were used formerly as in the 1 Cor. 3. when the Apostle makes the administration of the Law to be death and of the Gospel life Here he speaketh not of particular persons but of the generall state under the Gospel So in Gal. 2. and 3. Chapters he argueth against the whole dispensation of the Law and makes it equally abrogated unto all And it may probably be thought that that famous expression of the Apostle ye are not under the Law but under grace is not only to be understood of
the Law it cometh from the spirit of Christ The second excellency is in regard of continuance and duration The 2. Because of its duration it being to abide alwaies but the ministery of Moses to be abolished ministery of Moses was to be made void and abolished which is to be understood of that Jewish pedagogy not of every part of it for the Morall as given by Moses doth still oblige us Christians as hath been already proved but the ministery of the Gospel is to abide alwaies that is there is no new ministery to succeed that of the Gospel although in heaven all shall cease The third difference is in regard of glory God caused some materiall 3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spirituall that which shone upon Moses but materiall glory to shine upon Moses while he gave the Law hereby to procure the greater authority and majesty to the Law but that glory which cometh by the Gospel is spirituall and farre more transcendent bringing us at last into eternall glory So that the former glory seemeth to be nothing in comparison of this Even as the light of a candle or torch seemeth to be nothing saith Theophylact when the light of the Sun ariseth Now the Apostle handling these things doth occasionally open an allegory which had not Paul by the Spirit of God found out we neither could or ought to have done it And the consideration of that will serve much for my present matter I know divers men have divers thoughts about exposition of this place so that there seemeth to be a veile upon the Text as well as upon Moses his face But I shall plainly understand it thus Moses his face What signified by the shining of Moses his face shining when he was with God and coming from him doth signifie the glory and excellency of the Law as in respect of Gods counsells and intentions for although the Law did seem to hold out nothing but temporall mercies devoid of Christ and heaven yet as in respect of Gods intention it was farre otherwise Now saith the Apostle The Jewes were not able to fixe their eyes upon this glory that is the carnall Israelites did not behold Christ in the ministery of Moses because a veile is upon their hearts The Apostle makes the veile upon Moses to be a type of the blindnesse and hardnesse of heart in the Israelite so that as the veile upon Moses covered the glory of his face so the veile of blindnesse and stupidity upon the heart of the Jewes doth hinder them from the glory of the Law which was Christ And that this is so doth appeare viz. where the Israelite is denied to look stedfastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in my Text to the end of that ministery which was to be abolished and that end was Christ so that this Text doth fully prove my intent which is that Christ was in some measure a glorious object in the administration of the Law but the veile upon the Israelites heart hindered the sight of it Now saith Paul when it shall turne as we translate or rather when they shall turn for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observed to be used alwaies of persons and though the word be in the singular number in the originall yet according to the custome of Scripture it may be understood plurally because he speaks of a collective body When saith the Text this turning shall be the veile shall be taken away or rather as Camero well observeth in the present tense It is taken away for you cannot conceive that the Jewes shall be first turned unto God and the veile afterwards to be taken away but they both are together I will give another instance that Christ was the end of intention or aime in the dispensation of the Law from Galat. 3. 23 24. We were kept under the Law till Faith came Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ In which words not the Morall Law simply taken but the whole dispensation of the Jewes is compared to the instruction of a School-master Now as a School-master doth not only beat or correct but teach also and direct Thus the Law did not only severely curb and keep from sin but did also teach Christ Hence we are said to be kept under the Law which although some make an expression from the strict keeping and watching which souldiers in a garrison use to make yet a learned man makes it to denote the duty of a School-master as one who is to give an account of such committed to his charge In which sense Cain said Am I my brothers keeper The Law then as a School-master did not only threaten and curse or like the Egyptian task-masters beat and strike because the work was not done but did shew where power and help was to be had viz. from Christ only In the second place Christ is the end of perfection to the Law for 2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law the end of the Law being to justifie and to bring to eternall life this could not be attained by our owne power and industry not by any defect of the Law but by reason of our infirmity Therefore Christ he hath brought about this intent of the Law that we should be justified and have life If the end of humane lawes be to make good and honest men much rather is the end of the Morall Law appointed by God himselfe But the Law is so far from making us good as that it worketh in us all evill which effect of the Law in himselfe the Apostle acknowledgeth so that as good food and nourishment received by a diseased stomack doth increase the disease more according to that rule Corpora impura quantò magis nutrias deteriora reddis thus it is in every man by nature The Law which is for holinesse and life becometh to cause sinne and death Christ therefore that the Law may have its end he taketh our nature upon him that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that the meere 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in vouchsafing as his Spirit that we may obey it knowledge of the Law with the externall obedience onely to it was not available to any benefit Therefore Christ vouchsafeth his holy Spirit unto us regenerating of us whereby we come in part to obey the Law of God So that the people of God have a righteousnesse or holinesse of works but it is imperfect and so not inabling us to justification and in this sense it is that the people of God are said to keep Gods commandements So then whereas our condition was so by sin that we were neither able nor willing to obey the Law of God in the least degree Christ doth give us grace and cureth us so far that we are said to walk in his Law Now herein
11o. Junii 1646. We the President and Fellows of Sion Colledge London earnestly desire Master Anthony Burgess to publish in print his elaborate and judicious Lectures upon the Law and the Covenants against the Antinomian Errours of these times which at our entreaty hee hath preached and for which wee give him most hearty thanks that so as well the Kingdome as this City may have the benefit of those his learned labours Dated at Sion Colledge the 11th of June 1646. at a generall meeting of the Ministers of London there Arthur Jackson President in the name and by the appointment of the rest VINDICIAE LEGIS OR A Vindication of the MORALL LAW AND THE COVENANTS From the Errours of Papists Arminians Socinians and more especially Antinomians In XXIX LECTURES preached at Laurence-Jury London By Anthony Burgess Preacher of Gods Word LONDON Printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill at the Signe of the Bible in Wood-street 1646. TO THE Truly pious and worthily honoured Lady the Lady RUTH SCUDAMORE Honoured Madam I Have observed your Ladiship carefull in two things to improve the duty commanded in the Law and to imbrace the promise tendered in the Gospel the former hath been a spurre to holinesse the latter a curb to unbeliefe The consideration of this together with the remembrance of those manifold favours which your Ladiship hath plentifully vouchsafed to me and mine hath provoked me to dedicate this Treatise unto you which although it hath much controversall matter in it yet it is not without many practicall directions and consolations It hath been Gods goodnesse unto you that although in these times of calamities your portion hath been one of the afflictions in Paul's Catalogue without settled aboad yet God hath left your mind fixed and immoveable in the truth being enabled to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magnifie grace in the highest manner out of the reall sense of your necessity and unworthinesse yet to avoid Antinomianisme and on the other side to be punctuall and exact in the duties of mortification and holinesse yet to take heed of Pharisaicall Popery And indeed this is the right sense when we are so diligent in working out our salvation with feare and trembling as if there were no grace to justifie and yet so resting and beleeving in the grace of Christ as if no good thing had been done by us Madam goe on with the assistance of God and account the things of grace more excellent then the things of parts and while others rejoyce in opinions and new notions about faith and holinesse do you delight in the things themselves The Lord keep his best wine for you in the later end of your age and give you to see the fruit of your prayers a settled reformation in the Church that so when your time shall come you may depart in peace feeling much of the power and love of God living and much more of them dying Septemb. 21. 1646. Madam this is the prayer of your Ladiships humble servant in the Lord Anthony Burgess TO THE READER READER IF the Father said true that Books were the fruit of the mind as children are of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. body naturall affection must compell mee as she did for Moses to provide some Ark for the safety of this Book lest it perish And I know no better way then to give thee some account of the matter and method of it if thou vouchsafe to peruse it For the matter of it it is chiefly improved to maintaine the dignitie and use of the Morall Law against late errours about it and thereupon I have been forced to consult more with those books that are filled with such poyson then to peruse those Authors that have maintained the truth and I found the looking upon their Heterodoxies a speciall help to propagate and confirme the truth as that Roman Painter curiously drew the picture of an Horse by constant looking upon an Asse avoiding whatsoever he saw ridiculous or deformed in him I acknowledge this work above my strength it being a subject not much handled by former writers and so I could not be guilty of that fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I say as Austin Ego parvas vires habeo sed Dei Verbum magnas habet I have small strength but the Word and Truth of God hath great power None is more unwilling then my selfe to come in print but because hee that writeth good Books doth retia salutis expandere spread the nets of salvation to catch some men in and the good workes of such will last as long as their Bookes live I have hardened my selfe and overcome mine owne temper to publish to the world these conceptions of mine I have not affected to appeare in this Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about words and phrases because it 's controversall matter and so fitter to be represented to the understanding in naked unaffected explications then curiously adorned to please fancy Yea I have grudged at words as being too long and cumbersome desiring if possible to conveigh my sense in as briefe a manner as may be lest any that comes to look for fruit should find the leaves too broad and so cover it from sight And this endeavouring of brevity will make the matter seem too obscure and abrupt till there be a familiar acquaintance with my way My method is after some generall discourses about the usefulnesse of the Law more particularly to handle it as given to Adam and afterwards as promulgated by Moses to the people of Israel and herein I have taken in all the materiall questions that Papists Arminians Socinians and more especially Antinomians have started up In all this I have endeavoured to give the Law its due and the Gospel its due remembring that of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium distinguere gratias agat Deo sciat se esse Theologum It is the allegoricall interpretation of one Writer that the great feasting and musick which was used at the reconciliation of the father to his prodigall son did signifie the sweet harmonie and agreement between Law and Gospel If this were so then some doe represent the elder brother that grudge and murmure at this excellent accord If any adversary shall assault this Book I shall not be solicitous to answer it because I endeavoured so to state the question that at the same time truth might be maintained and falshood demolished and he that is so blind that he cannot see by the light of one Sun would not see any more if there were a thousand Suns THE CONTENTS 1 IN what respects the Law may be said to be good page 3. 2 Of what use the Law is to the ungodly p. 7. 3 Of what use the Law is to beleevers p. 8. 4 How many waies the Law may be abused p. 16. 5 What are the consequences of trusting in the Law p. 20. 6 What is required to the essence of a godly man in reference
the precepts of the morall Law for they were the chiefest and indeed the whole word of God is an organ and instrument of Gods Spirit for instruction reformation and to make a man perfect to every good work It 's an unreasonable thing to separate the Law from the Spirit of God and then compare it with the Gospel for if you doe take the Gospel even that promise Christ came to save sinners without the Spirit it worketh no more yea it 's a dead letter as well as the Law Therefore Calvin well called Lex corpus and the Spirit anima now accedat anima ad corpus and it 's a living reasonable man But now as when we say A man discourses A man understands this is ratione animae not corporis so when we say A man is quickened by the Law of God to obedience this is not by reason of the Law but of the Spirit of God But of this anon 4. It s good in respect of the sanction of it for it 's accompanied 4. The Law is good in respect of its sanction with promises and that not only temporall as Command 5. but also spirituall Command 2. where God is said to pardon to many generations and therefore the Law doth include Christ secondarily and occasionally though not primarily as hereafter shall be shewed It 's true the righteousnesse of the Law and that of the Gospel differ toto coelo we must place one in suprema parte coeli and the other in ima parte terrae as Luther speaks to that effect and it 's one of the hardest taskes in all divinity to give them their bounds and then to cleare how the Apostle doth oppose them and how not We know it was the cursed errour of the Manichees and Marcionites that the Law was onely carnall and had onely carnall promises whereas it 's evident that the Fathers had the same faith for substance as we have It 's true if we take Law and Gospel in this strict difference as some Divines doe that all the precepts wheresoever they are must be under the Law and all the promises be reduced to the Gospel whether in Old or New Testament in which sense Divines then say Lex jubet Gratia juvat and Lex imperat and Fides impetrat then the Law can have no sanction by promise But where can this be shewed in Scripture 5. In respect of the acts of it You may call them either acts 5. In respect of the acts of it or ends I shall acts And thus a law hath divers acts 1. Declarative to lay down what is the will of God 2. To command obedience to this will declared 3. Either to invite by promises or compell by threatnings 4. To condemne the transgressors and this use the Law is acknowledged by all to have against ungodly and wicked men and some of these cannot be denied even to the godly I wonder much at an Antinomian authour that saith * Assert of free grace pag. 31. It cannot be a law unlesse it also be a cursing law for besides that the same authour doth acknowledge the morall Law to be a rule to the beleever and regula hath vim praecepti as well as doctrinae what will he say to the law given to Adam who as yet was righteous and innocent and therefore could not be cursing or condemning of him It 's true if we take cursing or condemning potentially so a law is alwaies condemning but for the actuall cursing that is not necessary for such a transgressour that hath a surety in his room 6. In respect of the end of it Rom. 16. 4. Christ is the end of the 6. In respect of the end Law By reason of the different use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are different conjectures some make it no more then extremitas or terminus because the ceremoniall Law ended in Christ Others make it finis complementi the fulnesse of the Law is Christ Others adde finis intentionis or scopi to it so that by these the meaning is The Law did intend Christ in all its ceremonialls and moralls that as there was not the least ceremony which did lead to Christ so not the least iota or apex in the morall Law but it did also aime at him Therefore saith Calvin upon this place Habemus insignem locum quòd Lex omnibus suis partibu◠in Christum respiciat Imò quicquid Lex docet quicquid praecipit quicquid promittit Christum pro scope habet What had it been for a Jew to pray to God if Christ had not been in that prayer to love God if Christ had not been in that love yet here is as great a difference between the Gospel as is between direction and exhibition between a school-master and a father he is an unwise childe that will make a school-master his father Whether this be a proper intention of the Law you shall have hereafter 7. In respect of the adjuncts of it which the Scripture attributeth 7. In respect of the adjuncts to it And it 's observable that even where the Apostle doth most urge against the Law as if it were so farre from bettering men that it makes them the worse yet there he praiseth it calling it good and spirituall Now I see it called spirituall in a two-fold sense 1. Effectivè because it did by Gods Spirit quicken to spirituall life even as the Apostle in the opposition calls himselfe carnall because the power of corruption within did work carnall and sinfull motions in him But I shall expound it spirituall 2. Formaliter formally because the nature and extent of it is spirituall for it forbids the sins of the spirit not onely externall sins it forbids thy spirit pride thy spirit envie Even as God is the father of spirits so is the Law the law of spirits Hence it 's compared by James to a glasse which will shew the least spot in the face and will not flatter but if thou hast wrinckles and deformities there they will be seen so that there is no such way to bring Pharisaicall and Morall men out of love with themselves as to set this glasse before them 8. In respect of the use of it and that to the ungodly and to the 8. In respect of the use of it beleever 1. To the ungodly it hath this use 1. To restraine and limit sin And certainly though it should 1. Because it restraines and limits sin in the ungodly not reach to renovation and changing of mens hearts yet here is a great deale of good that it 's an outward whip and scourge to men whereby they are kept in honest discipline and this made the Apostle say The Law was added because of transgressions The people of Israel by their being in the wildernesse having forgotten God and being prone to Idolatry the Lord he added this Law as a restraint upon them Even as you see upon mad-men and those that are possessed
strict rule of things to be done by way of command but denoteth any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept He that distinguisheth well teacheth well Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points and indeed the reason why some can so hardly endure the word Law is because they attend to the use of the word in English or the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Lex as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle which understand it a strict rule onely of things to be done and that by way of meere command But now the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth comprehend more for that doth not only signifie strictly what is to be done but it denoteth largely any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept and hence it is that the Apostle calleth it The law of faith which in some sense would be a contradiction and in some places where the word Law is used absolutely it s much questioned whether he mean the Law or the Gospel and the reason why he calls it a law of faith is not as Chrysostome would have it because hereby he would sweeten the Gospel and for the words sake make it more pleasing to them but happily in a meere Hebraisme as signifying that in generall which doth declare and teach the will of God The Hebrewes have a more strict word for precept and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some say this also sometimes signifieth a promise Psal 133. 3. There the Lord commanded a blessing i. e. promised so John 12. 50. his commandement i. e. his promise is life everlasting So then if we would attend to the Hebrew words it would not so trouble us to heare that it is good But yet the use of the word Law is very generall sometimes it signifieth any part of The acceptions of the word Law in Scripture are divers the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law You are gods And that is in the Psalmes Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament sometimes the Law and the Psalmes are distinguished sometimes it is used for the ceremoniall law onely Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law onely as Galat. 5. Against such there is no law sometimes it is used for that whole oiconomy and peculiar dispensation of Gods worship unto the Jewes in which sense it is said to be untill John but grace and truth by Christ Jesus sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jewes as without Christ And thus the Apostle generally in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians Indeed this is a dispute between Papists and us In what sense the Law is taken for the Papists would have it understood onely of the ceremoniall law But we answer that the beginning of the dispute was about the observation of those legall ceremonies as necessary to salvation But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis and sheweth that not onely those ordinances but no other works may be put in Christs roome Therefore the Antinomian before he speaks any thing against or about the Law he must shew in what sense the Apostle useth it Sometimes it is taken strictly for the five bookes of Moses yea it is thought of many that book of the Law so often mentioned in Scripture which was kept with so much diligence was onely that book called Denteronomy and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandements Now the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense and pleadeth for it in another 2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God This is 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated a principle alwaies to be carried along with you for the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spirituall life and the Law is part of this Word of God This I proved before nay should the Morall Law be quite abolished yet it would not be for this end because the Spirit of God did not use it as an instrument of life for we see all sides grant that circumcision and the sacraments are argued against by the Apostle as being against our salvation and damnable in their owne use now yet in the Old Testament those sacraments of Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb were spirituall meanes of faith as truly as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are It is true there is a difference in the degree of Gods grace by them but not in the truth and therefore our Divines doe well confute the Papists who hold those sacraments onely typicall of ours and not to be really exhibitive of grace as these are in the New Testament Therefore if the Apostles arguing against the Morall Law would prove it no instrument of Gods Spirit for our good the same would hold also in Circumcision and all those sacraments and therefore at least for that time they must grant it a help to Christ and grace as well as Circumcision was If you say Why then doth the Apostle argue against the works of the Morall Law I answer Because the Jewes rested in them without Christ and it is the fault of our people they turne the Gospel into the Law and we may say Whosoever seeks to be saved by his Baptisme he falls off from Christ 3. To doe a thing out of obedience to the Law and yet by love 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another and delight doe not oppose one another About this I see a perpetuall mistake To lead a man by the Law is slavish it 's servile say they a Beleever is carried by love he needs no law and I shall shew you Chrysostome hath some such hyperbolicall expressions upon the words following The Law is not put for the righteous But this is very weak to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together for the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth Take an instance in Adam While he stood he did obey out of love and yet because of the command also We may illustrate it by Moses his mother You know she was hired and commanded by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse Moses which was her own childe now she did this out of love to Moses her childe yet did obey Pharaoh's daughters commandement upon her also so concerning Christ there was a commandement laid upon Christ to fulfill the Law for us yet he did it out of love It is disputed Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever the Arrians from the grant of this did inferre Christs absolute inferiority to the Father yet our orthodox Divines doe conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it Acts 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my
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 hath 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 find 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 Expositoâ—s think 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 hee 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 sins 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 accoÌ„modated to his particular meaning concerning the righteous man here Wee 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 error though upon different grounds that our righteousnesse and workes are perfect and therefore doe 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 selfe 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 lookes 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 hee 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 downe againe For saith he it cannot be conceived that it should rule but also it should reigne and therefore think it impossible that one act of the Law should be without the other The damnatory power of the Law is inseparable from it Can you put your conscience under the mandatory power and yet keep it from the damnatory Assertion of Grace page 33. Againe the same Author page 31. If it be true that the Law cannot condemne it is no more a Law saith Luther I say not that you have dealt as uncourteously with the Law as did that King with Davids servants who cut off their garments by the midst but you have done worse for even Joab-like under friendly words you have destroyed the life and soul of the Law You can as well take your Appendices from the Law as you terme them and yet let it remaine a true law as you can take the braines and heart of a man and yet leave him a man still By this it appeareth that if the Law doth not curse a man neither can it command
gave to Saul a spirit of government from his owne meere good will without any respect to Saul And how many men of parts have been so far from being blest because of these naturall endowments that they have turned their wedge of gold into an idoll to worship it Vse 1. To extoll the work of grace for the initiall progressive and consummative work of conversion for by all that hath been said you have seen the weaknesse of nature and the power of grace the strength of our disease and the necessity of a physician How uncomfortable will it be when thou diest to commit thy soule to that grace which thou hast disputed against And be not content with giving something to it unlesse thou give all to it Grace that justifieth Grace that sanctifieth Grace that saveth Vse 2. Not to abuse the doctrine of grace to idlenesse or negligence You see how both these promises and precepts grace and duties may be reconciled And as not to negligence so not to curious disputes doe not so trouble your selves about the doctrine of grace that you feele not the power of grace in your hearts and doe not so far dispute about your naturall corruption and how deep you are in it as not to labour to get out of it Austin compareth this to one who being fallen into a great pit his friend asked him how he came in Nay saith he rather seek how to get me out And thus doe ye in these matters of sin wherein you are wholly plunged LECTURE XI GENES 2. 17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evill thou mayest not eate for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die WE come now in order to the law God gave Adam and this may be considered two waies First as a Law secondly as a Covenant We will handle it first in the former notion Now because the law God gave Adam was partly naturall and partly positive both which did goe to the making up of that covenant I shall handle both those distinctly and first let us consider Gods positive law in the text which is also called by Divines a symbolicall precept because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its owne nature but indifferent and onely evill because prohibited So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two waies first by that which is proper to it the tree of knowledge of good and evill secondly by that which is accidentall to it viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it And that this commandement might be the better received in the Verse before God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this When God made this world as a great house he puts man into it as his tenant and by this tryall of obedience he must acknowledge his Land-lord That Adam did eate in the state of innocency and was hungry doth appeare by this text onely hunger was not in him as it is in us with paine and trouble The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine which is That God besides the naturall law ingraven in Adams heart did give a positive law to try his obedience The doubts in explicating of this point are 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill And here certainly we must take heed of being too curious lest as it was Adams sin to eate of it so it may be our curiosity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it Now when I aske what is meant by it I doe not understand what kind of fruit or tree it was whether apple or fig that cannot be determined but why it had that name The Rabbins who have as many foolish dreames about the Old Testament as the Friars about the New conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the use of reason and that this tree was to accelerate it And indeed the Socinians border upon this opinion for they say Adam and Eve were created very * Tanta suit Adami recens conditi stupiditas ut major in infantes cadere non posiit simple and weak in understanding and say they it 's impossible to conceive that if Adams soule were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces as the firmament is bespangled with stars how he should come to eate of the forbidden fruit or to sin against God But both these are false That he had perfect knowledge appeareth in his giving names to the creatures and to Eve so fitting The tree of knowledge why so called and apt and Ephes 3 the image of God is said to have a renewed mind and that though thus knowing he did yet sin and though thus holy he did yet fall it was because he was not perfectly confirmed but mutable Indeed Divines doe much labour to expresse how his sin did begin whether in the Will first or in the Understanding but that is impertinent to this matter That which is the most received both by Austin and others is that it was so called not from any effect but from the event because it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill and so it 's usuall in Scripture to call that by a name which it had afterward Now though this be generally received and cannot well be rejected yet certainly it may be further said that it was not called so by the meere event but by the divine decree and appointment of God as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam that he should not desire to know more or otherwise then God had appointed 2. Why God would give a positive law besides that of the naturall God besides the naturall law ingraven in Adams heart did give a positive law law in his heart There are these reasons commonly given 1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged for to obey the naturall law might be a necessary condition and not an act of the Will Even as the Heathens doe abstaine from many sins not because forbidden by 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth God but as dissonant to their naturall reason And even among Christians there is a great deale of difference between good actions that are done because God commands and because of a naturall conscience These two principles make the same actions to differ in their whole nature Therefore God would try Adam by some positive law that so the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth and therefore Adam in this was not to consider the greatnesse or goodnesse of the matter but the will of the commander 2. Another reason which floweth from the former is that so 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience Adams obedience might be the more tryed and
other considerations It was the opinion of Osiander that therefore wee are said to be made after the iof God because we are made after the likenesse of that humane nature which the second Person in Trinity was to assume and this hath been preached alate as probable but that may hereafter be confuted when wee come to handle that Question Whether Christ as a Mediatour was knowne and considered of in the state of innocency 3. Let us consider in what that image or likenesse doth consist The image of God in Adam consisted in the severall perfections and qualifications in his soule Where not standing upon the rationall soule of a man which we call the remote image of God in which sense we are forbid to kill a man or to curse a man because he is made after the image of God we may take notice of the severall perfections and qualifications in Adams soul As 1. In his Understanding there was 1. In his Vnderstanding was exact knowledge of divine and natural things an exact knowledge of divine and naturall things Of divine because otherwise he could not have loved God if hee had not known him nor could hee be said to be made very good Hence some make a three-fold light 1. That of imediate knowledge which Adam had 2. The light of faith which the regenerate have 3. The light of glory which the Saints in heaven have Now how great is this perfection Even Aristotle said that a little knowledge though conjecturall about heavenly things is to be preferred above much knowledge though certains about inferiour things How glorious must Adams estate be when his Understanding was made thus perfect And then for inferiour things the creatures his knowledge appeareth in the giving of Names to all the creatures and especially unto Evo Adam indeed did not know all things yea he might grow in experimentall knowledge but all things that were necessary for him created to such an happy end to know those he did but to know that he should fall and that Christ would be a Mediatour these things he could not unlesse it were by revelation which is not supposed to be made unto him So to know those things which were of ornament and beauty to his soule cannot be denied him Thus was Adam created excellent in intellectuall abilities for sapience knowing God for science knowing the creatures and for prudence exquisite in all things to be done 2. His Will which is the universall appetite of the whole man 2. His Will was wonderfully good and furnished with many habits of goodnesse which is like the supreme orbe that carrieth the inferiour with the power of it this was wonderfully good furnished with severall habits of goodnesse as the firmament with stars for in it was a propensity to all good Ephes 4. 24. It 's called righteousnesse and true holinesse and Eccl. 7. 29. God made man upright His Will was not bad or not good that is indifferent but very good The imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only good and that continually And certainly if David Job and others who have this image restored in them but in part doe yet delight in Gods will how much more must Adam who when he would doe good found no evill present with him He could not say as we must Lord I beleeve help my unbeliefe Lord I love help my want of love He could not complaine as that man Libenter bonus esse vellem sed cogitationes meae non patiuntur Yet though his Will was thus good he needed help from God to be able to doe any good thing I know there are some learned Divines as Pareus that doe deny the holinesse Adam had or the help God gave Adam to be truly and properly called grace righteousnesse they will call it and the gift of God but not grace Therefore Pareus reproveth Bellarmine for stiling his Book De gratia primi hominis and his reason is because the Scripture makes that onely grace which comes by Christ and when the subject is in a contrary condition as we are but it was not so with Adam but I cannot tell whether this be worth the while to dispute This is certaine 1. that Adam could not persevere or continue in obedience to God without help from God Nor secondly was he confirmed in a state of goodnesse as the Angels are yea as every godly man now is through Christ and therefore being mutable we may well conceive a possibility of his falling though made thus holy 3. In his Affections 1. These tempests and waves were under the 3. In his Affections regularity and subjection command of that holinesse They were to Adam as wings to the bird as wheels to the chariot and he was not as Actaeon devoured of those that followed him as it is with us for if you consider Affections in the rise of them they did not move or stirre but when holinesse commanded them This is proved in that he was made right Therefore there could not any Affection stirre or move irregularly as it 's said of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he troubled himselfe There were indeed Affections moving in Christ and so in Adam but they were as cleane water moved in a cleare glasse but in us they are as water stirred in a muddy place which casteth great desilement Adam therefore being made right he could set his Affections as the Artificer doth his clock to make it strike when and what he will 2. These Affections are subjected in regard of the continuance of them When our Affections and Passions are raised how hardly are they composed againe how are we angry and sin how doe we grieve and sin whereas in the state of innocency they were so under the nurture of it that as we command our dogs to fetch and carry and to lay downe so could Adam then doe bid come fetch such an object and then bid it to lay downe againe 3. In regard of the degrees of them We are so corrupted that we cannot love but we over-love we cannot grieve but we over-grieve All our heat is presently feaverish but it was then far otherwise Now then by this righteousnesse you may perceive the glorious image that God put upon us and apply it to us who are banished not onely out of a place of Paradise but out of all these inward abilities and who can deplore our estate enough Thus was the Morall Law written in his heart and what the command is for direction that he was for conversation And howsoever the Socinians deny this law written in his heart yet acknowledging he had a conscience which had dictates of that which was good and righteous it amounts almost to as much Nor is it any matter though we reade not of any such outward law given to him nor is it necessary to make such a Question Whether the breach of the Morall Law would have undone Adam and his posterity as well as the transgression of
Though some will not call it grace because they suppose that onely cometh by Christ yet all they that are orthodox doe acknowledge a necessity of Gods enabling Adam to that which was good else he would have failed Now then if by the help of God Adam was strengthned to doe the good he did he was so farre from meriting thereby that indeed he was the more obliged to God 6. God who entred into this Covenant with him is to be considered God entring into Covenant with Adam must be looked upon as one already pleased with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ as already pleased and a friend with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Therefore here needed no Mediatour nor comfort because the soule could not be terrified with any sin Here needed not one to be either medius to take both natures or Mediatour to performe the offices of such an one In this estate that speech of Luthers was true which he denieth in ours Deus est absolutè considerandus Adam dealt with him as absolutely considered not relatively with us God without Christ is a consuming fire and we are combustible matter chaffe and straw we are loathsome to God and God terrible to us but Adam he was Deo proximo amicus Paradisi colonus as Tertullian and therefore was in familiarity and communion with him But although there was not that ordered administration and working of the three Persons in this Covenant of workes yet all these did work in it Hence the second Person though not as incarnated or to be incarnated yet he with the Father did cause all righteousnesse in Adam and so the holy Ghost he was the worker of holinesse in Adam though not as the holy Spirit of Christ purchased by his death for his Church yet as the third Person so that it is an unlikely assertion which one maintaines That the Trinity was not revealed in this Covenant to Adam so that this sheweth a vast difference between that Covenant in innocency and this of grace What ado is here for the troubled soule to have any good thoughts of God to have any faith in Gods Covenant did suppose a power and possibility in Adam to keep it him as reconciled but then Adam had no feare nor doubt about it 7. This Covenant did suppose in Adam a power being assisted by God to keep it and therefore that which is now impossible to us was possible to him And certainly if there had been a necessity to sin it would have been either from his nature or from the Divell Not from his nature for then he would have excused himselfe by this when he endeavoured to cleare himselfe But Tertullian speakes wittily Nunquam figulo suo dixit Non prudenter definxisti me rudis admodum haereticus fuit non obaudiit non tamen blasphemavit creatorem lib. 2. ad Mar. cap. 2. Nor could any necessity arise from the Divell whose temptations cannot reach beyond a morall swasion Therefore our Divines doe well argue that if God did not work in our conversion beyond a morall swasion hee should no further cause a work good then Satan doth evill Nor could this necessity be of God who made him good and righteous nor would God subtract his gifts from him before he sinned seeing his fall was the cause of his defection not Gods deserting of him the cause of his fall Therefore although God did not give Adam such an help that de facto would hinder his fall yet he gave him so much that might and ought to prevent it And upon this ground it is that we answer all those cavills why God doth command of us that which is impossible for us to doe for the things commanded are not impossible in themselves but when required of Adam he had power to keep them but he sinned away that power from himselfe and us Neither is God bound as the Arminians fancy to give every one power to beleeve and repent because Adam in innocency had not ability to doe these for he had them eminently and virtually though not formally But more of these things in the Covenant of grace Vse 1. To admire with thankfulnesse Gods way of dealing with us his creatures that he condescends to a promise-way to a covenant-way There is no naturall or morall necessity that God should doe thus We are his and he might require an obedience without any covenanting but yet to shew his love and goodnesse he condescends to this way Beloved not onely we corrupted and our duties might be rejected not onely we in our persons might be abashed but had we all that innocency and purity which did once adorne our nature yet even then were we unprofitable to God and it was Gods goodnesse to receive it and to reward it Was then eternall life and happinesse a meere gift of God to Adam for his obedience and love what a free and meere gift then is salvation and eternall life to thee If Adam were not to put any trust in his duties if he could not challenge God for a reward how then shall we rely upon our performances that are so full of sin Use 2. Further to admire Gods exceeding grace to us that doth not hold us to this Covenant still That was a Covenant which did admit of no repentance though Adam and Eve had torne and rent their hearts out yet there was no hope or way for them till the Covenant of grace was revealed Beloved our condition might have been so that no teares no repentance could have helped us the way to salvation might have been as impossible as to the damned angels To be under the Covenant of works is as wofull as the poore malefactour condemned to death by the Judge according to the law he falls then upon his knees Good my lord spare mee it shall be a warning to mee I have a wife and small children O spare mee But saith the Judge I cannot spare you the Law condemnes you So it is here though man cry and roare yet you cannot be spared here is no promise or grace for you LECTURE XIV GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death HAving handled the Law of God both naturall and positive which was given to Adam absolutely as also relatively in the notion of a Covenant God made with Adam I shall put a period to this discourse about the state of innocency by handling severall Questions which will conduce much to the information of our judgement against the errours spread abroad at this time as also to the inlivening and inflaming of our affections practically These Questions therefore I shall endeavour to cleare 1. Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam while innocent so as to be considered either in his naturalls or supernaturalls For this is affirmed by some that Adam may be considered in his meere naturalls without the help of grace and so he loveth God as his naturall
restored againe to this image of God is a great and rare blessing few partake of it Holinesse must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee as ever sin and corruption hath soaked into thee Thou didst drink iniquity like water doest thou now as the Hart pant after the water-brooks The resurrection of the soule must be in this life It was sinfull proud but it 's raised an holy humble soule LECTURE XV. EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. HAving handled the Law given to Adam in innocency both absolutely as it is a Law and relatively as a Covenant we now proceed to speak of that Law given by God through the ministery of Moses to the people of Israel which is the great subject in controversie between the Antinomians and us There were indeed Precepts and Lawes given before Moses Hence the Learned speak much of Noah's Precepts The Talmudists say as Cuneus relates that these seven Precepts of Noah did containe such an exact rule of righteousnesse that whosoever did not know them the Israelites were commanded to kill But because these are impertinent to my scope I passe them by And in the handling of this Law of Moses I will use my former method considering the Law absolutely in it selfe and then relatively as a Covenant for as God you have heard hath suffered other errours about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and the Grace of God therefore to break forth that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever by those opinions which would overthrow it The Text upon which most of the matter I have to say shall be grounded are the words now read unto you that are an introduction to the Law containing briefly 1. The nature of the matter delivered which is called Words 1. What meant by words so Deut. 4. ten words hence it 's called the Decalogue Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word meerly as we say one word for so the ten Commandements are more then ten words but it signifieth a concise and briefe sentence by way of command Hence it 's translated sometimes by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. 19. and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 118. 57. so in the New Testament that which is called by Mark 7. 13. the word of God is by Matthew named the commandement of God So Paul also Galat. 5. 14. The whole Law is fulfilled in one word that is one briefe sentence by way of command 2. You have the note of universality All these words to shew 2. Nothing to be added or taken from them that nothing may be added to them or diminished onely here is a difficulty for Deut. 5. where these things are repeated againe by Moses there some things are transposed and some words are changed But this may be answered easily that the Scripture doth frequently use a liberty in changing of words when it repeateth the same thing onely it doth not alter the sense And happily this may be to confute that superstitious opinion of the Jewes who are ready to dreame of miraculous mysteries in every letter 3. There is the efficient cause of this in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. God the Author of this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used in the plurall as some of the Learned observe defectively and is to be supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the excellency of God as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for excellentissima fera By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because saith a learned man they interpreting this for the Grecians and the wisemen amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they would use a word to shew that he who gave the Law was Lord even over all those Now God is here described to be the authour of these Lawes that so the greater authority may be procured to them Hence all Law-givers have endeavoured to perswade the people that they had their Lawes from God 4. You have the manner of delivering them God spake them 4. The manner of delivering it saying which is not to be understood as if God were a body and had organs of speaking but onely that he formed a voice in the aire Now here ariseth a great difficulty because of Acts 7. where he that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angell This maketh the Papists and Grotius goe upon a dangerous foundation That God did not immediately deliver the Law but an Angell who is therefore called God and assumes unto himselfe the name Jehovah because he did represent the person of God But this is confuted by the Learned I shall not preface any further but raise this Doctrine That God delivered a Law to Doctr. the people of Israel by the hand or ministry of Moses I shall God willing handle this point doctrinally in all the theologicall considerations about the Law and First you must still remember that the word Law may be used The word Law is capable of diverse senses and significations in divers senses and before this or that be asserted of it you must cleare in what sense you speak of the Law Not to trouble you againe with the severall acceptions of the word which you must have alwaies in your eye take notice at the present of what a large or restrained signification the word Law is capable of for we may either take the word Law for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the Commandements Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Or else more strictly for that part which we call the Morall Law yet with the preface and promises added to it and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace which is to be proved in due time Or else most strictly for that which is meere mandative and preceptive without any promise at all And in this sense most of those assertions which the Learned have concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel are to be understood for if you take as for the most part they do all the precepts and threatnings scattered up and downe in the Scripture to be properly the Law and then all the gracious promises wheresoever they are to be the Gospel then it 's no marvell if the Law have many hard expressions cast upon it Now this shall be handled on purpose in a distinct question by it selfe because I see many excellent men peremptory for this difference but I much question whether it will hold or no. 2. What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is and what kinds of Of the division of Lawes in generall and why the Morall so called lawes there
promulgation of it and a solemn repetition but yet the Law did perpetually sound in the Church ever since it was a Church And this consideration will make much to set forth the excellency of it it being a perpetuall meanes and instrument which God hath used in his Church for information of duty conviction of sin and exhortation to all holinesse So that men who speak against the use of the Law and the preaching of it doe oppose the universall way of the Church of God in the Old and New Testament 6. The end why God gave this law to them I spake before of the The ends of the promulgation of the Law were end why he gave it then now I speake of the finall cause in generall and here I shall not speak of it in reference to Christ or Justification that is to be thought on when we handle it as a Covenant but only as it was an absolute rule or law And here it will be a great errour to think the promulgation of it had but one end for there were many ends 1. Because much corruption had now seised upon mankind 1. That the Israelites might see what holinesse was required of them and the people of Israel had lived long without the publick worship and service of God it was necessary to have this law enjoyned them that they might see farre more purity and holinesse required of them then otherwise they would be perswaded of 2. By this meanes they would come to know sinne as the A 2. That they might come to know sin and be humbled postle speakes and so be deeply humbled in themselves the law of God being a cleare light to manifest those inward heart-sins and soule-lusts that crawle in us as so many toads and serpents which we could never discover before 3. Hereby was shadowed forth the excellent and holy nature 3. To shadow out unto them the excellent and holy nature of God of God as also what purity was accepted by him and how we should be holy as he himself is holy for the law is holy as God is holy It s nothing but an expression and draught of that great purity which is in his nature insomuch that it s accounted the great wisedome of that people of Israel to have such lawes and the very nations themselves should admire at it 7. The great goodnesse and favour of God in delivering this law to The delivering of this Law to the Israelites was a great mercy unto them them And this comes fitly in the next place to consider of that it was an infinite mercy of God to that people to give them this law Hence Deut. 9. and in other places how often doth God presse them with this love of his in giving them those commandements And that it was not for their sakes or because of any merit in them but because he loved them So David Psal 147. hee hath not done so to other nations And to this may be referred all the benefits that the Psalmist and Prophets doe make to come by the law of God insomuch that it is a very great ingratitude and unthankfulnes unto God when people cry down the Law and the preaching of it That which God speakes of as a great mercy to a people these doe reject Nor because that God hath vouchsafed greater expressions of his love to us in these latter dayes therefore may those former mercies be forgotten by us seeing the Law doth belong unto us for those ends it was given to the Jewes now under the Gospel as is to be proved as much as unto them And therefore you cannot reade one commandement in the spirituall explication of it for the law is spirituall but you have cause to blesse God saying Lord what are we that thy will should be so clearly and purely manifested to us above what it is to Heathens yea and Papists with many others Therefore beloved it is not enough for you to be no Antinomian but you are to blesse God and praise him for it that it s read and opened in our congregations 8. The perfection of this law containing a perfect rule of all things The Law of Moses is a perfect rule belonging to God or man And here againe I shall not speak of it as a covenant but meerly as its a rule of obedience And thus though it be short yet it s so perfect that it containeth all that is to be done or omitted by us Insomuch that all the Prophets and Apostles doe but adde the explication of the Law if it be not taken in too strict a sense Hence is that commandement of not adding to it or detracting from it And in what sense the Apostle speakes against it calling it the killing letter and the ministration of death working wrath is to be shewed hereafter When our Saviour Matth. 5. gave those severall precepts he did not adde them as new unto the Morall Law but did vindicate that from the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees is is to be proved Indeed it may seem hard to say that Christ and justifying faith the doctrine of the Trinity is included in this promulgation of the Law but it is to be proved that all these were then comprehended in the administration of it though more obscurely Nor will this be to confound the Law and the Gospel as some may think This law therefore and rule of life which God gave the people of Israel and to all us Christians in them is so perfect and full that there is nothing necessary to the duty and worship of God which is not here commanded nor no sin to be avoided which is not here forbidden And this made Peter Martyr as you heard compare it to the ten Predicaments Vse Of Admonition to take heed how we vilifie or contemne this Law of God either doctrinally or practically Doctrinally so the Marcionites and the Manichees and Basilides whereof some have said it was carnall yea that it was from a Divell and that it was given to the Jewes for their destruction because it 's said to worke wrath and to be the instrument of death And those opinions and expressions of the Antinomians about it are very dangerous What shall we revile that which is Gods great mercy to a people Because the Jewes and Papists doe abuse the Law and the works of it to justification shall it not therefore have its proper place and dignity How sacred are the lawes of a Common-wealth which yet are made by men But this is by the wise God Take heed therefore of such phrases An Old-Testament-spirit and His Sermon is nothing but an explication of the Law For it ought much to rejoyce thee to heare that pure and excellent image of Gods holinesse opened How mayest thou delight to have that purity enjoyned which will make thee loath thy selfe prize Christ and Grace more and be a quick goad to all holinesse And if you say Here is nothing
of Christ all this while I answer That is false as is to be proved if the Law be not taken very strictly And besides the Law and the Gospel are not to be severed but they mutually put a fresh relish and taste upon each other And shall no mercy be esteemed but what is the Gospel Thou art thankfull for temporall mercies and yet they are not the Gospel but this is a spirituall mercy LECTURE XVI EXOD. 20. 1. God spake these words saying c. I Have already begun the discourse about the Morall Law and shall at this time consider those historicall passages which we meet with in the promulgation of it that so the excellency of it may hereby be more knowne for whosoever shall diligently observe all the circumstances of the history of the Law he shall find that God did put glory upon it and howsoever the Apostle Hebr. 12. and 2 Corinth 3. doth preferre the Gospel above this ministration of Moses yet absolutely in it selfe it was greatly honoured by God In the generall therefore you may take notice that therefore did God so solemnly and with great majesty 1. The Law was given with great majesty thereby to procure the greater authority to it give the Law that so the greater authority may thereby be procured to it Hence it is related of many Heathens that they have feigned some familiarity with their gods when they made their lawes that so the people might with greater awe and reverence receive them Thus Numa feigned his discourse with the goddesse Aegâ—ria for his lawes and it 's related of Pythagoras that he had a tamed Eagle which he would cause to come flying to him to make people think his sentences were delivered from heaven to him If lawes of men might well be called by Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much rather this Law of God It 's but a conceit of Prospers that Judaei were so called because they received Jus Dei the Law of God It 's further also to be observed in the generall that God hath alwaies had apparitions sutable to the matter in hand Thus hee appeared in a burning bush to Moses like an armed man to Jusua and with all signes of majesty and a great God being to deliver lawes to the people that they might see how potent he was to be avenged for every breach Againe in the next place take also this generall Observation That although the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes were given There is a difference between the Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Law notwithstanding they were given at the same time at the same time with the Morall Law yet there is a difference between them And this is to be taken notice of lest any should think what will this discourse make for the honour of the Morall Law more then the other lawes It 's true these three kinds of lawes agree in the common efficient cause which was God and in the minister or mediatour which was Moses in the subject which was the people of Israel and all and every one of them as also in the common effects of binding and obliging them to obedience and to punish the bold offenders against them But herein the Morall Law is preheminent 1. In that it The Morall Law more excellent them the Judiciall and Ceremoniall in three respects is a foundation of the other lawes and they are reduceable to it 2. This was to abide alwaies not the other 3. This was immediately written by God and commanded to be kept in the Ark which the other were not Lastly observe these two things in the generall about the God humbled the Israelites before he gave them his Law time of the delivery of the Law First God did not give them his Law till he had deeply humbled them and it may be now Christ will not settle his ordinances with us till he hath brought us low And secondly Before they come unto the Land of promise God God settled his worship before he gave them Canaan settleth his worship and lawes When he hath done this then he bids them Deut. 2. 1. Goe towards Canaan This sheweth A people cannot have Canaan till the things of God be settled But we come to the remarkable parts of the history of the promulgation of this Law and first you may consider the great and diligent preparation of the people to heare it Exod. 1. 9. for Preparation required before the hearing of the Law first They were to sanctifie themselves and to wash their clothes This indeed was peculiar unto those times yet God did thereby require the cleansing and sanctification of their hearts The superstitious 1. The people must sanctifie themselves imitating of this was among the Gentiles who used to wash that they may goe to sacrifice Plaut in Aulul Act. 3. scen 6. yea this superstition was brought into the Church Chrysost Hom. 52. in Mat. We see saith he this custome confirmed in many Churches that many study diligently how they may come to Church with their hands washt and white garments And Tert. cap. 11. de Orat. Hae sunt vera mundiciae non quas plerique superstitiosè curant ad omnem orationem etiam cum lavacro totius corporis aquam sumentes but this by the way God did hereby signifie what purity and holinesse of heart should be in them to receive his Law The second thing requisite was to set bounds so that none 2. They must not touch the Mount might touch the Mount It 's a violent perverting of Scripture which the popish Canons have applying this allegorically to a lay-man if he reade or medle with the Scripture whereas not only a beast but not the Priests themselves should touch this mountain and hereby God would have men keep within their bounds and not to be too curious The Doctrine of the Trinity of Predestination are such a mountain that a man must keep at the bottome of it and not climb up The third thing was not to come at their wives Some do referre 3. Nor come at their wives this to those women that were legally polluted but it may be well understood of their conjugall abstinence not as a thing sinfull but that hereby God would have them put off not only affections to all sinnes but all lawfull things so that this preparation for three dayes doth make much for the excellency of the Law and sheweth how spirituall we should be in the receiving of it 2. The Declaration of Majesty and greatnesse upon the delivery 2. The Law was given with great Majesty that so the people might be raised up to reverence the Law-giver of it For although it must be granted that this was an accommodated way to the Law that did convince of sinne and terrifie hence the Apostle Heb. 12. 18 19 c. preferreth the ministration of the Gospel above it yet this also was a true cause why thundrings and terrours did accompany the promulgation of
absolutely in it selfe as if that were to be done away but the particular administration and dispensation of it that was no more to continue who all grant Now the Antinomian confounds the Law with the administration of it This glory and shining that was upon Moses was as it may seem probable communicated unto him when he beheld the glory of God How long it continued is not certaine that hath no probability of the Rabbins who hold it did continue all his life time The Vulgar Translation makes it horned Cornuta hence the Painters pictured Moses with hornes but the word that signifieth an horne is also for to glitter and shine as also those rayes of light might be cast forth from Moses his face like hornes This was so glorious that he was forced to put a vaile upon his face when he spake to the people Now the Text saith Moses did not know his face shone It 's an excellent thing when God puts a great deale of glory upon a man and he doth not know it Gregory applyeth this of Moses to Ministers that as Moses because the people could not endure the glorious light of his face put a vaile upon it that so the people might converse with him thus the Minister whose parts and scholarship is far above the people should put on a vaile by condescending to the people But the Apostle maketh another mysticall meaning wherein the hard things shall in time God willing be opened 10. The custody and preservation of the Law in the Ark. And 10. The preservation of the Law in the Arke makes much for the glory of it this shall be the last Observation that will tend to the excellency of the Law As this one was written by the immediate hand of God so was it onely commanded to be preserved in the Ark. Now here is a great dispute in matter of history for 1 Kin. 8. 9. it's expresly said that in the Ark there was nothing save the tables of stone but Hebr. 9. 4. there is joyned Aarons rod and the pot of Manna Those that for this respect would reject the Epistle to the Hebrewes as of no authority are too bold and insolent Some think we cannot reconcile them yet the Scripture is true onely our understandings are weak Some think that at first God commanded those two to be laid with the tables of the Covenant but when the Temple was built by Solomon then all were laid aside by themselves and therefore say they that the history of the Kings speaketh of it as a new thing Some as Piscator make in to be as much as coram before or hard by and so they say the pot and rod were by the Ark. But I shall close with that of Junius who observes that the relative is in the feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so doth not relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arke the word immediately going before but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacle In which Tabernacle And this is frequent in the Scripture to doe so And this though it may be capable of some objection yet doth excellently reconcile the truth of the history with Paul Now how long these Tables of stone were kept and what became of them at last we have no certainty This proveth the great glory God did put upon the Law above any thing else which I intended in all these historicall observations Vse 1. Of Instruction How willing God was to put markes Seeing God hath put such marks of glory upon the Law let us take heed of disparaging it of glory and perpetuity upon the Law and therefore we are to take heed of disparaging it For how necessary is it to have this Law promulged if it were possible as terribly in our congregations as it was on Mount Sinai This would make the very Antinomians find the power of the Law and be afraid to reject it Certainly as the Physician doth not purge the bodies till he hath made them fluid and prepared so may not the Ministers of Christ apply grace and the promises thereof to men of Epicurean or Pharisaicall spirits till they be humbled by the discovery of sin which is made by the Law And I doubt it may fall out with an Antinomian who accounts sin nothing in the beleever because of justification as with one Dionysius a Stoick as I take it who held that paine was nothing but being once sick and tortured with the stone in the kidnies cried out that all which he had writ about Paine was false for now he found it was something So it may fall out that a man who hath writ and preached that God seeth no sinne in a beleever may sometime or other be so awed and troubled by God that he shall cry out All that he preached about this he now findes to be false Therefore let those that have disparaged or despised it see their sinne and give it its due dignity They report of Stesichorus that when in some words he had disparaged Helena's beauty he was struck blind but afterwards when he praised her again he obtain'd the use of seeing It may be because thou hast not set forth the due excellency of the Law God hath taken away thy eye-sight not to see the beauty of it but begin with David to set forth the excellent benefits of it and then thou mayest see more glory in it then ever LECTURE XVII EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. WE have already considered those historicall Observations which are in the delivery of the Law and improved them to the dignity and excellency thereof I now come to the handling of those Questions which make much to the clearing of the truths about it that are now doubted of And first of all it may be demanded To what purpose is this discourse about the Law given by Moses Are we Jewes Doth that belong to us Hath not Christ abolished the Law Is not Moses with his Ministery now at an end It is therefore worth the inquiry Whether the ten Commandements as given by Moses doe belong to us Christians or no And in the answering of this Question I will lay down some Propositions by way of Preface and then bring arguments for the affirmative The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodoxe though the Law as given by Moses did not binde Christians First therefore Though it should be granted that the Morall Law as given by Moses doth not belong to us Christians yet the doctrine of the Antinomians would not hold for there are some learned and solid Divines as Zanchy and Rivet and many Papists as Suarez and Medina which hold the Law as delivered by Moses not to belong to us and yet are expresly against Antinomists for they say that howsoever the Law doth not binde under that notion as Mosaicall yet it binds because it is confirmed by Christ so that although the first obligation ceaseth and we have nothing to doe with Moses now yet the second
is no matter saith Austin if that which be worshipped be the true object though it be worshipped divers wayes when appointed by him no more then when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages The fifth Argument If the Law by Moses doe not binde us then Argum. 5 the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not also belong unto us For this you must know that Moses in other places doth explain this Law and Davids Psalmes and Solomons Proverbs as also the Prophesies of the Prophets so farre as they are Morall are nothing but explications of the Morall Law Now what a wide doore will here be open to overthrow the Old Testament if I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. Set your hearts upon these words which I testifie to you this day because it is your life c. to urge Christians to keep the Commandements of the Lord It may be replyed What is that to us We have nothing to do with Moses The matter indeed doth belong to us as it is in the New Testament but as it is there written so we have nothing to doe with it And by this meanes all our Texts and proofes which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected And therefore Dominicus à Soto who is among the Papists for the negative expresly saith lib. 2. de Just jure quaest 5. Art 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the Old Testament unto Christians as in respect of the obliging force of it This is plainly to overthrow the Old Testament Now let us consider what are the chiefest Arguments which Arguments of the Antinomians whereby they would prove that the Law as given by Moses does not bind Christians examined and answered they bring for the support of this opinion that the Law as given by Moses doth not binde Christians And first they urge the Preface I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of Egypt This doth not belong to us because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt and say they further The temporall Promise to keep the Law doth not belong to us therefore Ephes chap. 6. 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandement with Promise he Argum. 1 doth not keep to the Promise particularly that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God shall give thee but speakes generally first by adding something that it may be well with thee which was not in the first Promise and then secondly by detracting saying only that thou mayest live long upon the earth in generall Now to the Preface some answer thus That we may be said Answer 1 literally to be in Egypt and they goe upon this ground that we are made one with the people of the Jewes and they bring the eleventh of the Romanes to prove this where the Gentiles are said to be graffed in so that they become of the same stock And it is plain that the Beleevers are Abrahams seed and then by this interpretation whatsoever mercy was vouchsafed unto them we are to account it as ours This cannot well be rejected but yet I shall not pitch upon this Others therefore they say That this bondage was typicall of our spirituall bondage and Answ 2 the deliverance out of it was typicall of our deliverance from Hell But this is not so literall an interpretation as I desire though I thinke it true Therefore in the third place I shall answer That there may be peculiar arguments that doe belong to the Jewes why they should keep the Commandements Answ 3 and there are generall ones that belong to all The generall arguments are I am the Lord thy God this belongs to us and then that peculiar argument may belong to them And this is no new thing to have a perpetuall duty pressed upon a people by some occasionall or peculiar motive Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God saith there by the Prophet that they shall no more say The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you see a speciall new argument may be brought for the generall duty And as for the particular temporall Promise I grant that did only belong to them but I deny the consequence that therefore the precept doth not for the Scripture useth divers arguments to the obedience of the same Command Davids Psalmes for the most part and some of Paul's Epistles as Philemon c. were written upon particular occasions yet the matter of them doth still belong to us The second Argument is that If the Law did oblige us as Argum. 2 given by Moses then it did the Gentiles and Heathens also and so the Heathens were bound to those Commandements as well as the Jewes but that is not so therefore Paul Rom. 2. speaketh of the Gentiles without this Law and as those that shall be judged without it Now this may be answered It doth not follow that the Answ Law by Moses must presently bind the Gentiles but when promulged and made known to them as at this time Infidels and Pagans are not bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ but if the doctrine of Christ were promulged to them they were then bound And I make no question but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moses his ministery to inquire after the true God and to worship him in the Jewish way so far as they could Thus we reade of the Eunuch coming up to Jerusalem to worship And certainly if a whole Nation had then been converted either they must have worshipped God according to their owne institution or God would have revealed unto them some different way of worshipping him from the Jewes or else they were bound so far as they could for the Ceremoniall worship bound them no otherwaies to worship God in the Jewish way then appointed by him The Law then given by Moses did bind Gentiles as it was made known to them Thus the stranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath though that be meant of a stranger that had received their religion yea Nehem. 13. 19. Nehemiah would not suffer the Tyrians that were strangers who did not submit to the Jewish Law to pollute the Sabbath Now to all this that hath been said you must take this limitation Though the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it yet in the obliging power of it it does That the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jewes as becoming the despensation of the Old Testament but yet the giving of the Law it selfe in the obliging power of it doth belong to us We all acknowledge that the Old Testament had a peculiar administration from the New it was fuller of terrour and so did gender more to bondage then the New Hence some
absolutely but limitedly if so be they did refuse the conditions of peace I therefore incline to those who think it a perverse addition of the Scribes and Pharisees yet am not able to say the other is false 3. Whether our Saviour doe oppose himself here to others as a Law giver or as an Interpreter cleansing away the mud and filth from the fountain And this indeed is worthy the disquisition for this Chapter hath been taken by the Manichees and Marcionites of old and by other erroneous persons of late to countenance great errours for some have said that the Author of the Old Testament and the New Testament are contrary some have said that the New Testament or the Gospel containeth more exact and spirituall duties then the Old Hence they conclude that many things were lawfull then which are not now and they instance in Magistracy resisting of injuries swearing and loving of our enemies and many counsels of perfection added And this is a very necessary Question for hereby will be laid open the excellency of the Law when it shall be seen that Jesus Christ setting aside the positive precepts of Baptisme and the Lords Supper c. commanded no new duty but all was a duty before that is now Now that our Saviour doth only interpret and not adde new Lawes will appeare 1. From that protestation and solemne affirmation he makes Christ does only interpret the old adds no new Lawes before hee cometh to instruct the hearers about their duties Think not that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it Now although it be true that Christ may be said to fulfill the Law diverse waies yet I think he speakes here most principally for his doctrinall fulfilling it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking of the Law and if this be so then our Saviours intent was that hee came not to teach them any new duty to which they were not obliged before onely hee would better explicate the Law to them that so they might be sensible of sinne more then they were and discover themselves to be fouler and more abominable then ever they judged themselves Thus Theophylact As a painter doth not destroy the old lineaments onely makes them more glorious and beautifull so did Christ about the Law In the next place Christ did not adde new duties which were not commanded in the Law because the Law is perfect and they were bound not to adde to it or detract from it Therefore we are not to continue a more excellent way of duty then that prescribed there Indeed the Gospel doth infinitely exceede in regard of the remedy prescribed for afflicted sinners and the glorious manifestation of his grace and goodnesse but if we speak of holy and spirituall duties there cannot be a more excellent way of holinesse this being an idea and representation of the glorious nature of God 3. That nothing can be added to the Law appeareth by that Commandement of loving God with all our heart and soule Now there can be nothing greater then this and this command is not only indicative of an end which we are to aime at but also preceptive of all the meanes which tend thereunto And lastly our Saviour saith not Except your righteousnesse exceed that of Moses his Law or which was delivered by him but that of the Scribes and Pharisees implying by that plainly his intent was to detect and discover those formall and hypocriticall waies which they pleased themselves in when indeed they never understood the marrow and excellency of the Law Question 4. What was the opinion received among the Pharisees The Pharisees were of opinion that the Law did only reach the outward man and forbid outward acts concerning the Commandements of God That you may know the just ground our Saviour had thus to expound the Law it will be manifest if you consider the generall opinion received among the Jewes about the sense of the Commandements and that was The Law did onely reach to the outward man did only forbid outward acts and that there was no sinne before God in our hearts though we delighted in and purposed the outward acts if they were not outwardly committed And this we may gather by Paul that all the while he was bewitched with Pharisaicall principles he did not understand inward lust to be sinne and as famous as it is false is that exposition brought by the Learned of Kimchy upon that Psalme 66. 18. If I regard iniquity in my heart hee will not heare he makes this strange meaning of it If I regard iniquity onely in my heart so that it break not forth into outward act the Lord will not heare that is heare so as to impute it or account it a sin And thus it is observed of Josephus that he derideth Polybius the noble historian because he attributed the death of Antiochus to sacriledge onely in his purpose and will which he thought could not be that a man having a purpose onely to sinne should be punished by God for it But the Heathens did herein exceed the Pharisees fecit quisque quantum voluit its Seneca's saying And indeed it s no wonder if the Pharisees did thus corrupt Scripture for its a doctrine we all naturally incline unto not to take notice or ever be humbled for heart-sinnes if so be they break not out into acts Oh what an hell may thy heart be when thy outward man is not defiled Good is that passage 2 Chron. 22. 26. Hezekiah humbled himselfe for the pride of his heart Certainly as God who is a spirit doth most love spirit-graces so he doth most abhorre spirit-sinnes The Schools doe well observe that outward sins are majoris infamiae but inward heart-sinnes are majoris reatûs as we see in the divels And from this corruption in our nature ariseth that poysonous principle in Popery which is also in all formall Protestants That the commands of God doe onely forbid the voluntary omssion of outward acts whereas our Saviours explication will find every man to be a murderer an adulterer c. Now our Saviours explications of the Law goe upon those grounds which are observed by all sound Divines viz. 1. That the Law is spirituall and forbids not onely the fruit and branches of sinne but even the root it selfe and fountaine And 2. that wheresoever any sinne is forbidden and in what latitude soever the contrary good things are commanded and in that proportionable latitude This therefore considered may make every man tremble and be afraid of his owne heart and with him to cry out Gehenna sum Domine I am a very hell it selfe Let us not therefore be afraid of preaching the Law as we see Christ here doth for this is the great engine to beate downe the formality and Pharisaisme that is in people And thus I come to raise the Doctrine which is that The Law Doctr. of God is such a perfect rule of life that Christ added no new precept
then by a great Inheritance so they were only invited to duties by carnall and temporall motives not by any spirituall considerations Now how false this is appeareth by the Prophets generall complaints that when they fasted it was not to him even to him and so they howled because of their miseries but not because God was offended And thus David though he had received the pardon of his sinne yet how kindly and spiritually doth he mourn Against thee thee only have I sinned Thus Micah 7. I will beare the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him What can be more spirituall 6. It required joy and contentednesse in him more then in any creature It required joy in God above all things else yea to the contempt of all creatures And doth the Gospel rise higher in any command We judge those very spirituall expressions Rejoyce in the Lord alwayes and Set your affections on things above and Our Conversation is in Heaven but doth not David goe as high when he saith Whom have I in Heaven but thee and none in earth in comparison of thee Did not David preferre the Word of God above gold and honey Did not his heart faint and yern within him What a sweet strain is that of him when banished he doth not wish for his kingdome nor outward estate but to see God in the beauties of holinesse Therefore howsoever the dispensation was not so cleare and manifest yet those that were diligent and blessed by God did arise to such excellent tempers It required perfection of the subject object degrees c. 7. Yea it required all perfection But what need I runne further in perfection seeing it commanded all perfection Perfection of the subject the man ought to be in minde and soule and affections all over holy Perfection in the object there was no duty or performance but the Law requireth it Perfection in degrees it did require love without any defect without any remissenesse at all so that there cannot be a more excellent doctrinall way of holinesse then the preaching of the Law 8. God did work grace in us by this as well as by the Gospell I The Law instrumentall to work grace in us as well as the Gospel adde this particular lest any should say All this terrifieth the more because it only commands and doth not help I answer That God doth use the Law instrumentally for to quicken up grace and increase it in us as David Psal 119. doth at large shew It is true the Law of it self cannot work grace no more can the Gospell of it self work grace only here is the difference we cannot be justified by any works of the Law that we are inabled to doe only we are justified by Faith not as it is a work for so it s commanded in the Law but as an instrument applying Christ Therefore Gods Spirit doth graciously accompany us in the pressing of these duties and hereby we become like a living Law neither doth this exclude Christ but advance him the more Vse Of Instruction How necessary a duty it is for a Minister It is the duty of Ministers to be diligent in preaching and expounding the Law of Jesus Christ to be diligent in preaching and explicating of the Law of God We see Christ here the first and the longest Sermon that ever he preached was to vindicate the Law and to hold forth the excellency of it and if we be legall Preachers in so doing then Christ also is so to be accounted And indeed some have not been afraid to speak so of Christ But to speake the truth the preaching of the Law is so necessary that you can never be spirituall heavenly heart-Christians unlesse these things be daily set before your eyes Can the boy ever learn to write well unlesse an exact Copy be laid before him Therefore you can never advance the Law too much or heare of it too much if so be it still be propounded as a Rule as a Doctrine Indeed when it is made a ground for our Justification then we turne the precious Manna into corrupt wormes Therefore be so farre from condemning or disputing against the Law as that you would earnestly desire to have more and more of this excellent Rule laid downe before your eyes How proud will be my best humility How carnall will my best heavenly-mindednesse be if so be that I goe to this Rule Where will formality and customary duties appeare if so be that we attend to this guide Oh know there is a great deale of unknown sinfulness in thy heart because the Law is unknown to thee LECTURE XIX MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard it was said of old c. BEcause my purpose is to set forth the dignity of the Morall Law I shall therefore briefly demonstrate in this present Sermon the falshood of that opinion maintained by Papists Anabaptists and Socinians That Christ came to give us more exact precepts than Moses delivered to the Jewes and therefore that Christ was not here an Interpreter but a Reformer It cannot be denyed but this Sermon of our Saviours hath bred many thoughts of heart for because of these precepts here not rightly understood the Heathens tooke occasion to calumniate the Christian Religion as that which could not stand with a Common-wealth And the Ancient Fathers were much troubled in answer to their objections for when Julian and others did urge that seeing by Christs commands we might not resist evill but rather be prepared to receive more injuries therefore no Warre no Magistracy no places of Judicature were lawfull the Fathers in their answer did seeme to yeeld this only they said Here was a lawfull way and a better way To warre or to take places of Justice were lawfull wayes but yet to refuse these and not to medle with them at all was a more sublime Christian way And from this mistake came that erroneous opinion of Precepts and Councels Besides it 's thought by the Learned that some of the Ancient Fathers being Philosophers before did retaine much of that stoicall disposition in them and so made Christs Precepts comply with their affections But this I shall endeavour to prove that there is no lawfull Morall way heretofore commanded by Moses to the Jewes which doth not at this time also belong to Christians Only let me premise thus much That howsoever the things questioned by the Adversaries are lawfull to Christians yet there are few that rise up to the practise of them as Christ commanded Certainly these places Of not resisting evil Of giving our cloak to him that would take away our coat c. though they do not exclude the office of a Magistrate or our desire of him to aide us in our defence yet they do forbid the frequent and common practise of most Christians so that we may say there are few states and Kingdomes which doe rise up to the practise of that patience and christian meeknesse which we see
against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that doe rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will doe to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions and resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty and the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it self to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknowne to the Fathers in the Primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plain thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2 Chron. 19. You execute the judgements of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice and love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefely these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect and benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an Antinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification and that The preaching of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally workes the conversion of men the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our â—ew birth and for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgements of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to worke the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law workes onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministery that whether it be by Law or Gospel he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it The Law with out Christ cannot worke to regeneration not for the Gospel-promise Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things wee preach may be advantagious to our soules so that there never was in the Church of God meere pure Law or meere pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of Conversion I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias agaâ— Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not medle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentully to concurre thereunto onely this cometh by Christ. The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the The Law may be bless'd to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification adoption or consolation so that when a man doth repent and turne unto God from his sins he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth but it must be in the promise of the Gospel so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lyeth not in this as some doe assigne that one is the instrument of grace and the other not for God useth both as I shall shew but in this that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God whether it be Law or Gospel doth not justifie us but this favour is in an evangelicall manner by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us Therefore let us not confound the Law or Gospel nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects that where one is the other cannot be To these two there is also a third thing to be premised and that is how the Word of God in generall is a medium or instrumentall The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that
he saith The promise or the Gospel and not the Law is the seed or doctrine of our new birth Assert of grace page 163. Now here are ambiguites as first the promise or Gospel for by this hee seemeth to decide a great Question that whatsoever is a promise in the Scripture that belongs to the Gospel and whatsoever is not that but a command or threatning that belongs to the Law whereas this needeth a great discussion 2. The state of the Question is not about the Gospel or the Law as they are both a doctrine in the Scripture but about the Spirit of God working by one or the other and the not attending to this makes the arguments so confounded 3. Hee saith it 's not the seed of the new birth whereas conversion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart and Mat. 13. The Word of God in generall is compared to seed sowen that brings forth different fruit as was said before but to let this passe The first instance that is brought cometh from John 17. v. 17. Instance 1 Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is truth Where saith the Authour to sanctifie is to separate any thing from a common use and to consecrate it to God and applied here to man includeth two things 1. Justification by the communication of Christs perfect holinesse whereby the beleever is presented holy and without blame to God 2. An inward renewing and changeing purifying the heart and life by degrees c. pag. 165. I answer 1. The word sanctifie when applied to men doth Answer 1 not onely signifie justification or renovation but setting a part to some peculiar office and charge and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Christs prayer here That as the Priests and Levites who were to enter into the sanctuary did first wash their hands and feet being also cloathed with goodly garments so the Apostles are here prayed for by our Saviour that they may be fitted for their great charge And thus Chrysostome you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5. Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations And this exposition is confirmed by the manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in truth so they reade it and mention not the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not in some copies so that they take it as an expression opposing the sanctification of the Priests which was by legall types and shadowes But that which doth especially confirme this exposition seemeth to be the two verses following As thou hast sent mee into the world so have I also sent them into the world and for their sakes I sanctifie my selfe that they also may be sanctified through the truth Now sanctification as it comprehends justification and renovation cannot be applied to Christ but it must signifie the segregating and setting apart himselfe for the office of the Mediatour Besides if sanctification doe here include justification how by the Antinomian principle can our Saviour pray for the justification of those who are already justified But in the next place grant that interpretation of sanctification Answer 2 for renovation how doth this prove that the Law is not used instrumentally For our Saviours argument is universall thy word is truth And may not this be affirmed of the Law as well as the Gospel Doth not David speaking of the Law call it pure and cleane that is true having no falshood in it Yea it is thought probable by a learned man that this speech of our Saviours is taken out of Psal 119. 142. where are these words Gerbard expresly Thy Law is the truth Where the word Law cannot exclude the Morall Law though it may include more The next instance is Tit. 2. ver 11 12. For the grace of God that Instance 2 bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodlinesse and wordly lusts c. I answer All this may be granted and nothing makes against Answ this opinion for none deny the Gospel to be the instrument of holinesse But is not here a contradiction The Author before made the Gospel and a Promise all one whereas here it doth command holinesse and godlinesse Is not this with the Papists to make the Gospel a new Law Let him reconcile himself In the next place he doth ambiguously put into the argument the word effectually which is not in the Text for although God doth by his grace in the Gospel effectually move those that are elected to Godlinesse yet Scripture and experience sheweth that where the grace of the Gospel hath appeared thus teaching men yet all are not effectually turned unto holinesse from their worldly lusts Besides the argument may be retorted upon him What word teacheth to deny all ungodlinesse that sanctifieth instructeth but the Law doth so insomuch that the Psalmist saith Psal 119. A young man whose lusts are strongest and temptations most violent may be cleansed by attending thereunto only you must alwayes take notice of the preheminency of the Gospel above the Law for the Law could never have any such good effect upon the heart of man were it not for the gracious Promise by Christ Therefore all the godly men in the Old Testament that received benefit by the Morall Law in studying of it and meditating upon it did depend upon the Gospel or the grace of God in Christ as appeareth by David praying so often to be quickned by Gods Law And here by the way let me take notice of a remarkable passage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. ver 14. where speaking of the great commendation the Psalmist gives the Law of God that it converts the soul and we may adde those places of inlightning the minde that they clense a mans way c. he maketh this Question Whether the Law doth ever obtain such effects or no And he answereth affirmatively that it doth but then when it s written not in tables but in the hearts and bowels of men so that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth use the Law instrumentally so that he writeth it in our hearts And this is all we so contend for A third and last instance out of Scripture in answering of Instance 3 which all is answered is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by Answ the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith that is of the Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal. 3. 2. Gospel the doctrine of faith In the opening of this text we must take heed of three errours First of those who hold we have faith first before we have the Spirit for how can we come Errour 1 to have faith by our own reason and will This were to make it no work of God The Apostle therefore certainly speakes of the increase of the graces of the Spirit for it is well observed by Peter
Martyr that in causes and effects there is a kinde of circle one increasing the other As the clouds arise from the vapours then these fall down again and make vapours only you must acknowledge one first cause which had not its being from the other and this is the Spirit of God which at first did work faith The second errour is of the Papists that maketh this difference Errour 2 between the Law and the Gospel That the same thing is called the Law while it is without the Spirit and when it hath the Spirit it is called the Gospel This is to confound the Law and Gospel and bring in Justification by works The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards These rocks avoided we come to consider the place and first I Errour 3 may demand Whether any under the Old Testament were made partakers of Gods Spirit or no If they were how came they by it There can be no other way said but that God did give his Spirit in all those publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Israelites so that although they did in some measure obey the Law yet they did it not by the power of the Law but by the power of Grace Again in the next place which hath alwaies much prevailed with me did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time We constantly maintain against the Papists that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance Therefore in Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb they were made partakers of Christ as well as we yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace as any thing else Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture some other way is to be thought upon about the exposition of these words Some there are therefore that doe understand by the Spirit the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit for this was reserved till the times of the Messias and by these miracles his doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expresly and Beza doth confesse that this is the principall scope of the Apostle though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit And if this should be the meaning it were nothing to our purpose Again thus it may be explained as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith so by the works of the Law is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law which the false Apostles taught namely that Christ was not enough to justification unlesse the works of the Law were put in as a cause also And if this should be the sense of the Text then it was cleare that the Galathians were not made partakers of Gods Spirit by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their seducers but before while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ and therefore it was their folly having begun in the spirit to end in the flesh This may be a probable interpretation But that which I shall stand upon is this The Jewes and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ consider Rom. 2. 17 18 19. or when they went furthest they joyned Christ and the observance of the Morall Law equally together for justification and salvation whereas the Law separated from Christ did nothing but accuse and condemne not being able to help the soul at all Therefore it was a vain thing in them to hope for any such grace or benefit as they did by it So that the Apostles scope is not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law which David and Moses did so much commend but against it in the sense as the Jewes did commonly doat upon it which was to have justification by it alone or at the best when they put the Law and Christ together Now both these we disclaime either that God doth use the Law for our justification or that of it self it is able to stirre up the least godly affection in us More places of Scripture are brought against this but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant Thus therefore I shall conclude this point acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodoxe men speak otherwise and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question but as yet that which I have delivered carrieth the more probability with me and I will give one text more which I have not yet mentioned and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moses is said to receive that he might give the Israelites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lively Oracles that is not verba vitae but verba viva vivificantia so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving life not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them but when we by grace are inabled to obey them God out of his mercy bestoweth eternall life Let me also adde this that I the rather incline to this opinion because I see the Socinians urging these places or the like where justification and faith is said to be by Christ and the Gospel that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see that these priviledges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant whereas it is plain that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David who lived under the Law as a schoole-master for the same kinde of justification as ours is And thus I come to another Question which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us and from whence they have their name and that is the abrogation of the Morall Law And howsoever I have already delivered many things that doe confirme the perpetuall obligation of it yet I did it not then so directly and professedly as now I shall The Text I have chosen being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon I will therefore open The Text opened the words and proceed as time shall suffer The Apostle Paul having laid down in verses preceding the nature of justification so exactly that we may finde all the causes efficient meritorious formall instrumentall and finall described as also the consequent of this truth which is the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what we doe he draweth a conclusion or inference ver 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively A man is justified by faith the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all equivalent with the Apostle And then to prevent all errours and cavils he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works And this proposition he doth extend to the Jewes and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God
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 Doe we make voide the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle used this word in this Chapter ver 3. and it signifieth 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 doe 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 seeme 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 beare 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 Orthodoxe pitch upon is that the Law The Law established three wayes by the Gospel 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 righteousnesse 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 doe obtaine 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 LECTURE XXII ROM 3. 31. Doe we then make voide the Law THis Text is already explained and there are two Observations doe naturally arise from it as first That it is an 'T is hard to set up Christ and grace and not be thought to destroy the Law hard thing so to set up Christ and 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 Orthodoxe 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 The doctrine of Christ and grace doth establish the Law 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 truth for it would seeme as if the Scripture held out contradictions in this point In my Text it 's denyed that the Apostles doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 denyed so Ephes 2. 14. Christ is described 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that maketh voide the hand-writing against us And in that place the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when yet Mat. 5. he denyed that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve the Law Grave therefore and serious is Ghimnitius 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 unlesse it be distinctly explained how it is abrogated In the first place therefore consider That about a Law there Interpretation dispensation c. affections of a Law 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 doe 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
every particular beleever but generally of the whole dispensation of the Gospel under the New Testament 7. We will grant that to a beleever the Law is as it were abrogated The Law to a beleever is abrogated in these particulars 1. In respect of Justification Though I say mitigation might 1. In respect of justification be properly here used yet we will call it abrogation with the Orthodox because to the godly it is in some sense so And that which is most remarkable and most comfortable is in respect of justification for now a beleever is not to expect acceptation at the throne of grace in himself or any thing that he doth but by relying on Christ The Papists they say this is the way to make men idle and lazy doing in this matter as Saul did who made a Law that none should eate of any thing and so Jonathan must not taste of the honey Saul indeed thought hereby to have the more enemies killed but Jonathan told him that if they had been suffered to eate more honey they should have been more revived and inabled to destroy their adversaries Thus the Papists they forbid us to eat of this honey this precious comfort in Christ as if thereby we should be hindered in our pursute against sinne whereas indeed it is the only strength and power against them 2. Condemnation and a curse Thus still the condition of a beleever 2. In respect of condemnation is made unspeakably happy Rom. 1. There is no condemnation And Christ became a curse for us so that by this meanes the gracious soule hath daily matter of incouragement arguing in prayer thus O Lord though my sinnes deserve a curse yet Christ his obedience doth not Though I might be better yet Christ needeth not to be better O Lord though I have sinned away my own power to doe good yet not Christs power to save Heb. 6. 18. you have a phrase there flying for a refuge doth excellently shew forth the nature of a godly man who is pursued by sinne as a malefactor was for his murder and he runneth to Christ for refuge and so Beza understands that expression of the Apostle Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him which implyeth the justice of God searching out for him but he is in Christ Now when we say he is freed from condemnation that is to be understood actually not potentially There is matter of condemnation though not condemnation it selfe 3. Rigid obedience This is another particular wherein the 3. In respect of rigid obedience Orthodoxe declare the abrogation of the Law but this must warily be understood for Christ hath not obtained at Gods hands by his death that the Law should not oblige and tye us unto a perfect obedience for this we maintain against Papists that it 's a sinne in beleevers they doe not obey the Law of God to the utmost perfection of it And therefore hold it impossible for a beleever to fulfill the Law But yet we say this mercy is obtained by Christ that our obedience unto the Law which is but inchoate and imperfect is yet accepted of in and through Christ for if there were only the Law and no Christ or grace It is not any obedience though sincere unlesse perfect would be entertained by God Neither would any repentance or sorrow be accepted of but the Law strictly so taken would deale as the Judge to the malefactor who being condemned by the Law though he cry out in the anguish of his spirit that he is grieved for what he hath done yet the Law doth not pardon him 4. It is not a terrour to the godly nor are they slavishly compelled 4. In respect of terrour and slavish obedience to the obedience of it And in this sense they are denyed to be under the Law But this also must be rightly understood for there is in the godly an unregenerate or carnall part as well as a regenerate and spirituall See Rom. 7. 22 25. with my minds I serve the Law of God but with my flesh the Law of sinne Now although it be true that the Law in the terrible compelling part of it be not necessary to him so farre as he is regenerate yet in regard that he hath much flesh and corruption in him therefore it is that the Scripture doth use threatnings as so many sharpe goads to provoke them in the waies of piety But what godly man is there whose spirit is so willing alwayes that he doth not finde his flesh untoward and backward unto any holy duty How many times doe they need that Christ should draw them and also that the Law should draw them So that there is great use of preaching the Law even to beleevers still as that which may instrumentally quicken and excite them to their duty Qui dicit se amare legem mentitur nescit quid dicat Tam enim amamus legem quam homicida carcerem said Luther and this is true of us so farre as we are corrupt 5. It doth not work or increase sinne in them as in the wicked The 5. In respect of the increase of sin Apostle Rom. 7. 8. complaineth of this bitter effect of the Law of God that it made him the worse The more spirituall and supernaturall that was the more did his carnall and corrupt heart rage against it so that the more the Law would damme up the torrent of sinfull lusts the higher did they swell Now this sad issue was not to be ascribed to the Law but to Paul's corruption As in the Dropsie it is not the water or beere if frequently drunk that is to be blamed for the increase of the disease but the ill distemper in the body Now in the godly because there is a new nature and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God wrought in him his corruption doth not increase and biggen by the Law but is rather subdued and quelled although sometimes even in the godly it may work such wofull effects And this also take notice of that as the commandement of the Law so also the Promises of the Gospel doe only stirre up evil in the heart totally unsanctified 6. It is abrogated in many accessaries and circumstantials Even 6. In respect of many Circumstantials the Morall Law considered in some particulars is abrogated totally as in the manner of writing which was in tables of stone We know the first tables were broken and what became of the last or how long they continued none can tell and this makes Paul use that opposition 2 Cor. 3. 3. Not in tables of stone but in the fleshly tables of the heart Although this you must know that the doctrine of the Gospel as written with inke and paper doth no more availe for any spirituall working then the Law written in tables Therefore the Apostle useth in that verse this phrase Not written with inke as well as Not in tables of stone And this
is to be observed against the Antinomians who to disparage the Law may say that was written in stones what good can that doe May we not also say The doctrine of the Gospel that is written in paper and what can that doe 7. But Christ doth perpetually continue as a rule and law to them 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule appeares Which may thus appeare 1. From the different phrases that the Apostle useth concerning the Ceremoniall Law which are no where applyed to the Morall Law 1. From the different Phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law And these Chemnitius doth diligently reckon up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 14. So again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 7. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antiquare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 senescere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evanescere Heb. 8. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abrogatio Heb. 7. 18. Now saith he these words are not used of the Morall Law that it is changed or waxeth old or is abrogated which doe denote a mutation in the Law but when it speakes of the Morall Law it saith We are dead to it We are redeemed from the curse of it Which phrases doe imply the change to be made in us and not in the Law If therefore the Antinomians could bring such places that would prove it were as unlawfull for us to love the Lord because the Morall Law commands it as we can prove it unlawfull to circumcise or to offer sacrifices then they would doe something for their purpose 2. From the sanctification and holinesse that is required of the 2. From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever beleever which is nothing but conformity to the Law so that when we reade the Apostle speaking against the Law yet that he did not meane this of the Law as a rule and as obliging us to the obedience thereof will easily appeare For when the Apostle Gal. 5. 4. had vehemently informed them of their wofull condition who would be justified by the Law yet ver 13. and 14. pressing them not to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh he giveth this reason For all the Law is fulfilled in one word even in this Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe What doth the Apostle use contradictions in the same Chapter Presse them to obey the Law and yet reprove them for desiring to be under it No certainly but when they would seek justification by the Law then he reproveth them and when on the other side they would refuse obedience to the Law then he admonisheth them to the contrary As for their distinguishing between the matter of the Law and the Law we have already proved it to be a contradiction 3. In that disobedience to it is still a sinne in the beleever For 3 In that disobedience is still a sin there can be no sinne unlesse it be a transgression of a Law as the Apostle John defineth sinne Now then when David commits adultery when Peter denyeth Christ are not these sinnes in them If so is not Davids sinne a sinne because it is against such and such a Commandement As for their evasion it is a sinne against the Law as in the hand of Christ and so against the love of Christ and no otherwayes this cannot hold for then there should be no sinnes but sinnes of unkindnesse or unthankfulnesse As this Law is in the hand of Christ so murder is a sin of unkindnesse but as it is against the Law simply in it self so it is a sinne of such kinde as murder and not of another kinde so that the consideration of Christs love may indeed be a great motive to obey the commands of God yet that doth not hinder the command it selfe from obliging and binding of us as it is the will of the Law-giver But of this distinction more in its place 4. From the difference of the Morall Law and the other lawes 4. Because it differs from other Lawes in respect of causes of abrogation Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated in respect of the causes of abrogation There can be very good reasons given why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated which can no wayes agree to the Morall as First The Ceremoniall Law had not for its object that which is perpetuall and in it self holinesse To circumcise and to offer sacrifice these things were not in themselves holy and good nor is the leaving of them a sinne whereas the matter of the Morall Law is perpetually good and the not doing of it is necessarily a sinne I speake of that matter which Divines call morall naturall Again The Ceremoniall Law was typicall and did shadow forth Christ to come Now when he was come there was no use of these ceremonies And lastly The Jewes and the Gentiles were to consociate into one body and no difference be made between them Now to effect this it was necessary that partition-wall should be pulled down for as long as that stood they could not joyn in one LECTURE XXIII ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law yea we establish it I Shall not stand upon any more arguments to prove the perpetuall obligation of the Morall Law because this is abundantly maintained in that assertion already proved that the Morall Law as given by Moses doth still oblige us I come therefore to those places of Scripture which seeme to Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a time only answered hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a prefixed time only even as the ceremoniall Law doth I shall select the most remarkable places and in answering of them we shall see the other fully cleared And I will begin with that Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were untill John It should therefore seeme that the Law was to continue but untill Johns time I will not here stand to dispute whether John Baptist was to be reckoned under the Old Testament or the New only take notice that we cannot make a third different estate wherein the Covenant of grace should be dispensed as an Antinomian author doth for our Saviour seemeth fully to conclude that he did belong to the Old Testament therefore he saith The least in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he * Minimum maximi est maju◠maximo minimi Although in this respect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him that he did not prophesie of a Messias to come but pointed with his hand to him who was already come And as for the text it self none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came for lest any should by that expression think so our Saviour addeth Heaven and earth shall sooner passe away then that one title should fall to the ground Therefore the meaning is that the Law in respect of the typicall part of it as it did
shadow forth and prefigure a Christ so it was to cease Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together as agreeing in one generall thing which is to foretell of Christ and to typifie him And this will be clearer if you compare Matth. 11. 13. with this of Luke where it is thus set down All the prophets and the Law prophesied unto John whereby it is cleare that he speakes of the typicall part of the Law yet not so as if the Ceremonies were then immediately to cease only from that time they began to vanish The next place of Scripture is that famous instance so much vexed in this controversie Rom. 6. 15. For you are not under the Law but under grace Now to open this consider these things 1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law and what The Apostle argueth against the Law in comparison of Christ was the proper state of the Question in those dayes And that appeareth Act. 15. where you have a relation made of some beleeving Jewes that were of the sect of the Pharisees who pressed the necessity of Circumcision and so would joyn the ministery of Moses and Christ together Now it seemeth though the Apostles in this Councell had condemned that opinion yet there were many that would still revive this errour and therefore the Apostle in this Epistle to the Romans and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this false doctrine and labour much against it Stapleton and other papists they think that the controversie was only about the Ceremoniall Law and this they doe to maintain their justification by the works of the Law when wrought by grace But though it must be granted that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occasion of that great difference and the most principall thing in question yet the Apostle to set forth the fulnesse of grace and Christ doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Morall Law for the Jewes did generally think that the knowledge and observation of the Morall Law without Christ was enough for their peace and comfort And if they could perswade themselves that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God though they lived in grosse disobedience to the Morall Law as Isai 1. alibi it many times appeareth they did how much more when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law must they needs be secure of their favour with God And in this sense it is that the Apostle speakes seemingly derogatory to the Law because they took it without Christ Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements when yet we know they were signes of an Evangelicall grace 2. That the Apostle useth the word Law in divers senses which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point Now in most of those places where the Law seemeth to be abolished it is taken in one of these two senses Either first synecdochically The word Law taken in a two-fold sense the Law put for part of the Law to wit for that part which actually condemneth and accuseth as when the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation whereas we may say A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription as well as against a thing by accusation Or secondly the word Law is put for the ministery of Moses which dispensation was farre inferiour unto the ministery of the Gospel And in this sense the Apostle doth much use it in the Epistle to the Galathians and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes So that here is a continuall mistake when the Antinomians heap place upon place which seeme to abolish the Law and doe not first declare what Law and in what sense those places are to be expounded 3. Consider these Phrases Of the Law Without the Law These Phrases Of the Law Without the Law Vnder the Law and In the Law explained Vnder the Law and In the Law Without the Law is two wayes First he is without the Law that is without the knowledge and understanding of it Thus the Gentiles are without the Law And secondly Without the Law that is without the sense and experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law and thus Paul Rom. 7. said when the Law came he died Now the godly though they are denied to be under the Law yet they are not said to be without the Law for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it both in respect of knowledge and observation of it then might beleevers be said to be without the Law And to this Without the Law is opposed In the Law Rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vulgar In legem Beza Cum lege It signifieth those that doe injoy the Law and yet sinne against it And much to this purpose is that Phrase Of the Law Rom. 4. 14. which sometimes is as much as Of the Circumcision to wit those that are initiated into the Ministery of Moses but in other places it signifieth as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the opposite to it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver 14. where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law 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 Vnder the Law Therefore take notice 4. There is a voluntary being under the Law as Christs was and A two-fold being under the Law 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 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 denyed to the godly 5. That interpretation of some though of solid judgement The commonly received sense of that Phrase Not to be under the Law rejected 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 seeme 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 Beza's interpretation of the phrase approv'd Law to be the same in sense with under sinne for the Apostle speaking of himselfe as carnall Chap. 7. saith that the Law wrought in him all manner of evil 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 sinne reigne in you for now you are not under the Law stirring up sinne 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 sinne 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 doe 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 Sinne which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions that is the former husband the soule had and lusts they are the children hereof but when we are regenerated then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soule so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband but sinne 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 doe constantly obey it and 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 foure states of men those who are Ante legens and these commit sinne without knowledge of it Sub lege and these commit it with some fighting but are overcome Sub gratia and these doe fight and shall overcome and Sub pace these we may make to be those in heaven LECTURE 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 doe 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 Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law 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 sunne that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had and if that be true of Bernard Sapiens est cui res sapiunt prout sunt hee is a wise man to whom things doe tast and relish as they are divine and holy things as holy earthy things as earthly and fading then certainly by this Law of God there was true wisedome prescribed Other arguments Moses doth bring as The great authority God put upon the Law The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law from the manner of delivering it Which Law hee declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant Now this take notice of that the word Covenant to omit other significations is taken sometimes synecdochically for part of the Covenant as it is here in these words The Doctrine I will insist upon is That the Law was delivered That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant appears by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant-way Or The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant and the reall properties of a Covenant 1. The name of a Covenant 2 King 18. 12. Because they obeyed 1. In that it hath the name of a Covenant not the voice of the Lord their God but transgressed his Covenant and all that Moses the servant of God commanded Deut. 17. 2. If there be found any that hath worught wickednesse in transgressing the Covenant which was the ten Commandements as appeareth ver 3. And more expresly 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord that he made with the children
Apostle describeth the righteousnesse which is by faith And Beza doth acknowledge 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 all 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 wee of our owne power have and doc 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 and 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 wholly 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 Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace 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 Argum. 1 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 Exod. 19. 5 6. If yee will obey my voice you shall be a peculiar treasure unto mee and yee shall be unto me a kingdome 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 workes how could such an agreement come between them 2. If wee consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant it must needes be a Covenant of grace for there wee have remission Argum. 2 and pardon of sinne whereas in the Covenant of workes there is no way for repentance or pardon In the second Commandement God is described to be one showing 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 and 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 mercy for thousands and forgiving iniquity and this hee 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 Argum. 3 it must needs be a Covenant of grace for what is the meaning of the first Commandement but to have one God in Christ our God by faith For if faith had not been on such termes commanded it had been impossible 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 commandement is love from faith unfeigned but because Scultetus doth very probably by commandement 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 Commandement 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 doe it without any spot or blemish by sinne or without the grace of God for pardon if they should at any time breake the Law 4. From the Ceremoniall Law All Divines say that this is reduced Argum. 4 to the Morall Law so that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the second Commandement Now wee all know that the Sacrifices were evangelicall and did hold forth remission of sinnes through the blood of Christ If therefore these were commanded by the Morall Law there must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and darke 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 doe our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appeare from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant Argum. 5 which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with bloud 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 sinne typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or reall some think Christ likewise was the Angel spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse
eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge that his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seeme plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spirituall held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists 2. Of Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Lawes under the New Testament New Testament hath added more perfect Lawes and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not onely command to pray but gave a prescript forme of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they goe on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of workes and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse error whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when wee speak of the Law and Gospel strictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immediatly to heaven Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediately to heaven therefore say they wee doe not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New find such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith hee saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which hee brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sinne and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places hee brings Jer. 50. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sinne not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jewes which God would bring backe from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel onely for had not the godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sinnes viz Christs bloud as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sinne in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full growne heires What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see lesse sinne in their children while young then when growne up and their childishnes doth more excuse them And although children onely have a rod for their faults yet men growne up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therefore he seeth sinne in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest worke of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master that so they may be prepared for Christ and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel that their lives should be fuller of wisedome and grown graces then the Jewes because they are not under a School-master as children As if one should say to a young man that is taken from the Grammar-schoole and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for hee is not in
perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore hee is called a Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I dony that even under the Gospel that all sinnes are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sinnes are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose wee pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meere declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification The forenamed Authour hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTURE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of workes Nay but by the law of faith WEe have confuted the false differences and now come to lay downe the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall onely substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into its opposite Species but of the subject according to its severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of workes and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousnesse unto the Jewes that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace and the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Jewes did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacraments but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jewes and Gentiles did eye and looke to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1 Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old of perspicuity and clearnesse in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night-time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summe of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda speranda facienda Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved 1. It is so for the credenda they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a veile upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also 2. For the speranda for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ onely to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called ecclesia but never synagoge and the meeting of the Jewes called alwaies synagoge but never ecclesia doth suppose that the Jewes were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called synagoge although Cameron Praelect de eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstaine from the word synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporall and carnall yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins obseruation shewing that the Jewes should first be allured by temporall mercies and afterwards the Christians by spirituall As saith he first that which is animall and then that which is spirituall The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus wee may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animall was first and then that which is spirituall Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet wee see David making God his portion and professing that hee hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meere outward mercies These good things promised to the Jewes were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soule and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernell and the shell but the Jewes for the most part looked onely to the outward Hence Christ when hee opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernell to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now 3. For the facienda although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in morall things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and cleare as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ
2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neere bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandement is charity may seeme to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fullfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fullnesse of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when hee gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law and the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to the scope of the Apostle who speaketh of such a Law that the Jewes expected righteousnesse by in the performing of it which must be the Morall Law only Now when we speak of the Morall Law having Christ for the end of it then in the second place that may be considered two waies 1. Either rigidly and in an abstracted consideration from the administration The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident of it as it doth require perfect obedience and condemning those that have it not now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope or end of the Law but it is meerly by accident and occasionall that a soule abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ onely you must know that the Law even so taken doth not exclude a Christ It requireth indeed a perfect righteousnesse of our owne yet if we bring the righteousnesse of a surety though this be not commanded by the Law yet it is not against the Law or excluded by it otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us 2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly of it by Moses in all the particulars of it and thus Christ was intended directly and not by accident that is God when hee gave the Law to the people of Israel did intend that the sense of their impossibility to keep it and infinite danger accrewing thereby to them should make them desire and seek out for Christ which the Jewes generally not understanding or neglecting did thereby like Adam goe to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakednesse their empty externall obedience According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end That an End is two-fold Either such to which a thing doth naturally incline of it selfe Or secondly That which becometh an end by the meere appointment and ordination of some Agent Now the end of the Law to which naturally it inclineth is eternall life to be obtained by a perfect righteousnesse in us but the instituted and appointed end which God the Law-giver made in the promulgation of it was the Lord Christ So that whatsoever the Law commanded promised or threatned it was to stirre up the Israelites unto Christ They were not to rest in those precepts or duties but to go on to Christ so that a beleever was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ and when he had found him he was to seek no further but to abide there Now this indeed was a very difficult duty because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour And what is the reason that under the Gospel beleevers are still so hardly perswaded to rest only on Christ for righteousnesse but because of that secret selfe dependance within them Having premised these things I come to shew how Christ is Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law the end of the Law taken largely in the ministry of Moses And in the first place Christ was the scope and end of intentention God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience would thereby humble and debase the Israelites so that thereby they should the more earnestly flye unto Christ even as the Israelite stung by a serpent would presently cast his eyes upon the brasen Serpent It is true Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there yet not so but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations And this you have fully set forth in that Allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth 3. 7. I shall explaine that place because it may be wrested 2 Cer. 3. 7. opened by the Antinomian as if because that kind of ministery which was by Moses was to be done away and evacuated therefore the preaching of the Law were also to be abrogated but that is The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects far from the Apostles scope for the Apostle his intent there is to shew the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel above that of the Law and that in three respects 1. In regard one is the ministery of death and condemnation the 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation other of life and righteousnesse Therefore the one is called Letter and the other Spirit Now this you must understand warily taking the Law nakedly and in it selfe without the Spirit of God and the Gospel with the Spirit for as Beza well observeth if you take the Gospel without Gods Spirit that also is the ministration of death because it is as impossible for us to beleeve as it is to obey the Law by our owne power only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel and not to the Law because Christ who is the authour of the Gospel is the fountaine of life and when any good is wrought by
Prophets are here joyned to the Law not so much in regard of their predictions as because they were Interpreters of the Law The second reason is from that evill which shall befall him that doth break it and here he nameth a two-fold Antinomianisme one in life and practise the other in doctrine That in practise is aggravated though it be one of the least commandements They are called least either because the Pharisees thought them so or else indeed because all the commands of God were not concerning duties of the same consequence The other in doctrine is expressed in those words And teach men so I cannot consent to Beza's interpretation making this teaching to be by example and life or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although as if the meaning were He that doth break in his practice my commandement although he doe teach them in doctrine There is no necessity of offering such violence to the Text. But if we interpret it of doctrinall breaking it will very well agree with the Pharisees who made void the commandements of God by the doctrines of men The evill that shall befall such is in those words He shall be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven Called is put for is or be He shall be the least By Kingdome of heaven What meant by Kingdome of heaven some understand that Kingdome of glory in heaven and by least meane nullus none he shall not at all enter into the Kingdome of heaven Others by Kingdome of heaven doe understand the Church of God and so they expresse it when there shall be a reformation in the Church and truth should break forth which was presently to come to passe then those corrupt teachers who would poyson men should be discovered and then they should be least that is of no account even as it fell out to the Pharisees though for a while they were highly esteemed among men I forbeare to touch upon that Question hotly disputed with some Whether our Saviour doe in this discourse meane onely the Morall Law or the Ceremoniall also as being not to my purpose That it is meant chiefly of the Morall Law appeareth by the instances which Christ giveth From the Text thus opened I observe That any doctrine which teacheth the abrogation or dissolution Doctr. of the Law is highly offensive unto God The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law Covertly three waies For the opening of this consider that the doctrines of men may either directly and with an open face overthrow the Law as the Marcionites and Manichees did or else interpretatively and more covertly and that is done three waies 1. When they make not the Law of God to be so full and extensive 1. When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is in its obligation as indeed it is and thus the Pharisees they made void the Law when they affirmed outward acts to be only sins and thus the Papists doe in part when they make the Law no further to oblige then it is possible for us to keep it These doctrines doe in tantum though not in totum destroy the Law 2. When men hold such principles that will necessarily by way of 2. When they hold principles by necessary consequence inforcing the abrogation of it consequence inforce the abrogation of the Law And thus though some Antinomians doe expresly and boldly assert the abolishing of it at least to beleevers yet those that have more learning and warinesse doe disclaime it and account it a calumny but even at the same time while they doe disclaime it as it is to be shewed presently they hold such assertions as doe necessarily inferre the abrogation of it 3. The Law may be doctrinally dissolved by pressing such duties 3. When they presse such duties upon men as will necessaitate them to break the commandements of God upon men whereby they will be necessitated to break the commandements of God Thus when the Pharisees taught that whatsoever vow was made concerning any gift they were bound to doe it though thereby they were dis-inabled to honour their parents And this is most remarkably seen in the Church of Rome who by the multitude and necessity of observation of their Church precepts and constitutions make men to break the plaine commandements of God Now I shall briefly instance generally about those errours that dissolve Gods Law and then more particularly about the Antinomian doctrine The first Hereticks that opposed it were the Marcionites and The Marcionites and Manichees the first oppugners of the Law Manichees Marcion whom Tertullian calls Mus ponticus because of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture to make it serviceable to his errours he among other errours broacheth this That the old Law as he calls it was evill and that it came from an evill god To him in this opinion succeeded Manes who truly might be so called because of his madnesse although his followers to take away that reproach called him Mannichaus as much as one that poured forth Manna as some affirme This mans errours though they were very grosse yet so propagated that it was two hundred yeares ere they were quieted These and their followers all agreed in this to reject this Law of God There were also Hereticks called Anomi as it were sine lege but their errour was to think that they could by their knowledge comprehend the divine nature And they gave so much to this their faith that they held Whosoever should imbrace it though he committed hainous and atrocious sins yet they should doe him no hurt Epiphan lib. 3. Haeres 36. But to let passe these we may say Popery is in a great part Antinomianisme And Antichrist he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that lawlesse One for is not their doctrine that the Pope may dispense with the Lawes of God and that the Pope and Christ have the same Consistory Antinomianisme And in particular we may instance in their taking away the second Commandement out of some Catechismes because it forbiddeth the worshipping of Images Hence Vasquez one of their Goliahs doth expresly maintaine that the second Commandement did belong only to the Jewes and so not obliging us Christians thinking it impossible to answer our arguments against their Image-worship if that be acknowledged still in force Is there not also a generation of men who doe by doctrine deny the fourth Commandement How many late books and practices have been for that opinion but hath it not fallen out according to the later exposition of my Text that they are the least in the Kingdome of heaven men of little account now in the Church while reforming I might likewise speak of some Anabaptists for there are of that sect that disclaime the opinion who overthrow the fifth Commandement by denying Magistracy lawfull for Christians But I will range no further The Antinomians doe more fall against this Text
then any in that they doe not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement but of all even of the whole Law This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time of whom Islebius was the captaine he was a School-master and also Professor of Divinity at Islebia It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every wind for first he defended with the Orthodox the Saxon Confession of Faith but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim When Luther admonished him of his errour he promised amendment but for all that secretly scattered his errour which made Luther set forth publikely six solemne disputations against the Antinomians that are to be seen in his workes which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced and revoked his errour publishing his recantation in print yet when Luther was dead this Euripus did fall into his old errour and publikely defended it Now how justly they might be called Antinomists or as Luther sometimes Nomomachists appeareth by these Propositions which they publikely scattered about in their papers as 1. That the Law is not worthy to be called the word of God Positions of Antinomians 2. To heare the word of God and so to live is a consequence of the Law 3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel 4. We are with all our might to resist those who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther against which he had his disputations Vol. 1. Thusselberge lib. contra Antin pag. 38. relateth more as 1. The Law doth not shew good works neither is it to be preached that we may doe them 2. The Law is not given to Christians therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law 3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel not the Law because Christ did not say Preach the Law but Gospel to every creature 4. The Legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us 5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works is blasphemy in Divinity Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text yet at other times the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox and Antinomists seemeth to be not Whether a godly man doe not delight in the Law and doe the workes of the Law but Whether he doth it Lege docente urgente mandante the Law teaching urging and commanding As for the later Antinomians Doctor Taylor and Mr. Burton who preached and wrote against them doe record the same opinions of them Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them saith One preached that the whole Law since Christs death is wholly abrogated and abolished Another That to teach obedience to the Law is Popery Another That to doe any thing because God commands us or to forbeare any sin because God forbids us is a signe of a morall man and of a dead and unsound Christian Others deliver That the Law is not to be preached and they that doe so are Legall Preachers Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or Dogs Hogs were such that despised justification living in their swinish lusts Dogs such who sought to be justified by their works Hee tells of one of their disciples that said Away with this scurvie sanctification and that there is no difference between godly here and in their state of glory but only in sense and apprehension Many other unsavoury assertions are named by those Authors but these may suffice to give a taste of their opinions for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus in such falshoods as these are lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses We need not drink up the whole sea to taste whether the water be salt but as a statue that is made of clay yet outwardly so gilded that it seemeth to be gold if any man take a piece of it in his hand and discover what it is doth make every one know what the whole statue is so it is in this case For my part I am acquainted with them no other waies but by their Books which they have written and in those every errour is more warily dressed then in secret There I find that sometimes they yeeld the Law to be a rule of life yea they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists and if so their adversaries may be better called Antifidians And it cannot be denied but that in some parts of their Books there are wholsome and good passages as in a wood or forest full of shrubs and brambles there may be some violets and primroses yet for all this in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs they must be forced to acknowledge it The Author of the Assertion of Free-grace who doth expresly touch upon these things and disclaimes the opinion against the Law pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow For first he makes no reall difference either in Scripture or use of words between the Law reigning and ruling so that if the Law rule a man it reigneth over him Now then they deny that the Law doth reigne over a beleever and so do the Orthodox also therefore they must needs hold that it cannot be a rule unto him And then pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law or rule thereof he addes He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor of Newgate who would rob and kill if his Gaoler be not with him Againe this is most cleere by what hee saith pag. 31. hee refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law but not the damnatory hee makes these things inseparable and as impossible for the Law to be a Law and have not both these as to take the braines and heart from a man and yet leave him a man still Now then seeing he denieth and so doe all Protestant Writers that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law he must also deny he is under the mandatory because saith he this is inseparable I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion Antidotes against Antinomian errours and the Authors thereof Luther calleth them Hostes Legis Organa Satanae he saith their doctrine is more to be taken heed of then that of the Papists for the Papists they teach a false or imperfect repentance but the Antinomians take all away
from the Church Rivet calls them Furores Antinomorum In the first place awe thy heart with a feare against errours in 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damne thee doctrine as that which may damne thee as well as an open grosse sin Consider that place Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very grosse and doe exclude from the Kingdome of Heaven and that hee takes heresies there in a religious consideration is plaine because it 's made to differ from seditions strifes and variances Neither doe thou please thy selfe in that Question What is Heresie Tu Haereticus mihi ego tibi for the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evill doctrine and there the Apostle calls evill doctrine evill deeds 2. Look to all the places of Scripture as well as some onely That 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of is a perpetuall fault among the Antinomians they onely pitch upon those places where Christ and his grace is spoken of but not of those Texts where duties are commanded especially those places of Scripture where the Law of God is wonderfully commended for the many reall benefits that come by it where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated Lex Dei in aeternum manet vel implenda in damnatis vel impleta in beatis said Luther What a curb would it be unto this errour if they would consider with what an holy passion and zeale the Apostle doth deny that hee destroyeth the Law making this very objection to himselfe Doe we then make void the Law God forbid Now can we think that the Apostle who in the third Chapter to the Romans doth so vehemently deny that he destroyeth the Law should so much forget himselfe as in the fourth Chapter to abolish it No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction 3. Doe not affect applause among people as having found some 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people new nigher way about Christ and grace then others have I have observed this itching humour in the Antinomian Sermons printed where they will call upon their hearers to mark it may be they shall heare that which they have not heard before when the thing is either false or if it be true is no more then ordinarily is taught by others But now when men desire to be applauded in the world they suggest to their inward disciples as if they had found out some new unheard thing and their followers broach it abroad and so they come to be exalted Thus they doe like Psaphon the Libyan It 's reported of him that he kept ten tame birds at home and taught them to sing Magnus deus Psaphon and when he had done so he let these birds flye into the woods and mountaines where all the other birds learned the same song of them which the Libyans perceiving and thinking it no plot but a divine accident decreed to sacrifice to Psaphon and to put him in the number of their gods 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 4. Doe thou diligently study fundamentalls and the principles of Religion As the childe groweth crooked for not being well looked to at first and many errours do now spread themselves because men are not well catechised They build without a foundation It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiasticall Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion It was a wise speech of Aristides who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore answered Propound to day and I will answer to morrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly but take time to be diligent and considering 5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion that differeth 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion from the learned and godly be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it The Apostle giveth a good rule Rom. 14. Hast thou faith have it to thy selfe He doth not there command a man to equivocate or dissemble and deny a truth but not needlesly to professe it when it will be to the offence of others Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their owne accord to the Heathen Magistrates professing themselves Christians whereby they were put to death hath a good and elegant speech Confiteri nos magis voluit quà m profiteri he doth confesse that doth it being asked and demanded he doth professe that doth it out of his owne free accord 6. Consider that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace grace and Christ For he sets up free grace and Christ not who names it often in his Book or in the Pulpit but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it Now who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two i. Who urgeth no use of the Law who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin who denieth humiliation or he who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects Certainly this later will much more in heart and reall affections set up free grace FINIS THE TABLE A. THe Law abolished as a Covenant not as a Rule Page 204 The Law abrogated to beleevers in six particulars p. 209. 210. 211 Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremoniall Law which agree not to the morall p. 213 Six abuses of the Law p. 16. 17. 18. 19 Conversion and Repentance are our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace p. 97 Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit p. 107 Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturalls or supernaturalls answered in two Positions p. 129 Whether Adam needed Christs help ibid p. 130. Whether God required lesse of Adam then us p. 135. Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience though not amorem mercenarium p. 13 What help the Angels had by Christ p. 130 Calvines two Reasons why Angels needed Christs mediation ibid. Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed p. 86 Foure limitations concerning those antecedaneous works ibid. The first Antinomian p. 38 Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted p. 234. 236 The Antinomian why most inexcusable p. 43 The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it a contradiction p. 206 The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbeleevers as well as beleevers p. 208 The opinion of the
old Antinomians p. 267 The word As taken variously p. 157 Antidotes against Antinomian errors p. 269 Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow Christ and grace p. 271 B A Blaspheming Monk p. 25 Blaspheming Papists p. 26 The Lay-mans book is the whole universe p. 75 Master Burton his Report of Antinomians p. 268 C A Cordiall for a broken heart p. 21. 22 Contradictions of the Antinomians p. 30 A Community of goods not taught by the law of Nature p. 81 Christs Incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall p. 132 It is an hard matter so to set up Christ and grace as not thereby to destroy the law p. 202 The doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest manner doth establish not overthrow the law ibid. God entred into Covenant with Adam in giving him a law p. 119. 120 What a Covenant implyes p. 121 Why the Covenane of grace is not still a covenant of workes seeing workes are necessary p. 46 A Covenant of Friendship p. 121 A Covenant of Reconciliation p. 121 No Covenant properly so called can be betwixt God and Man p. 122 How God can covenant with man p. 123 Five Reasons why God would deal with man in a covenant-way rather then in an absolute way p. 124. 125 A vast difference betwixt the covenant in innocency and in grace p. 126 The morall law delivered as a covenant proved p. 220 It hath the reall properties of a covenant p. 221 In what sense the law may be a covenant of grace explained p. 222. 223 Arguments proving the law a covenant of grace p. 224 225 226 Objections answered p. 227 Doctor Crisp confuted p. 13. 14 Cursing taken two waies 1 Potentially so a law is alwaies condemning 2. Actually so a law is not ever condemning p. 6 D DEcalogue resembled to the ten Predicaments by Martyr and why The threatning of death to Adam if he did eat c. was fulfilled in that he became then mortall and in a state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also p. 106. 107 Determination to one takes not away naturall liberty nor willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried unto p. 88 Three generall waies of proving the Deity of Christ p. 130 Foure differences not substantiall but accidentall betwixt the law and the Gospell p. 241 c. Five Differences betwixt the Law and Gospell strictly taken pag. 247. 248. 249 c. All Doctrine reduced to three heads credenda speranda facienda p. 242 E THe Papists notion concerning Ecclesia and Synagoge confuted p. 242 If the Antinomians end were onely to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of workes to Justification it were more tolerable p. 30. but then their books and end were not reconciliable ibid. Other ends which might make the Antinomians more exousable p. 30. 31 How Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse p. 25. 257 End taken two waies p. 256 Four waies Christ is the perfective end of the Law p. 260. 261 Aquinas distinction of end p. 257 Endâ—xus said hee was made to behold the sun p. 75 Exhortations to what purpose given to them who have no power of themselves to doe them p. 69 Errours in Doctrine damnable p. 269 F FAbles and fictions how used by the Fathers p. 2 How Faith justifies p. 42 Two acts of Faith ibid. Faith and Repentance wrought both by the Law and Gospel p. 252 The same object may be known by the light of Faith and of Nature p. 70 Whether justifying Faith were in Adam at first p. 117 Faith of adherence and dependence in Adam in innocency and shall be in heaven p. 125 Adams faith considered as an act of the soul not as an organ to lay hold on Christ p. 125 Finger of God p. 149 Finis indigentie assimilationis p. 44 Free-will by nature p. 82 Arguments for free-will answered p. 92. 93 G GEnealogies how usefull and how vaine page 2 How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law p. 57 Who are meant by the word Gentiles p. 56. 57 The Gospel and Law may be compared in a double respect p. 230 The word Gospel taken two waies ibid. Whether the Gospel be absolute or no. p. 249 Gospel taken strictly is not a doctrine of Repentance or holy workes p. 252 All Good morally is good theologically p. 58 Good workes how taken p. 37. 38 Foure things required to the effence of good workes p. 37. 38 The word Grace used sometimes for the effects of grace but more commonly for the favour of God p. 20 Grace is more then love ibid. Grace implyeth indebitum and demeritum of the contrary as Cameron observes p. 21 What grace the Pelagians acknowledge ibid. Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given to it p. 88 H A Two-fold writing of the law in the heart p. 58 The properties of holinesse fixed at first in Adams heart p. 116 Humiliation comes by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects page 253 I IMage and likenes signific one thing p. 111 An Image four-fold p. 111. 112 Wherein the Image of God in man consists page 112. 113. 114. 115 A Thing said to be immortal foure wayes p. 107. The Injudicionsnesse of the Antinomians pa. 30 Whether Adams immortality in innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 136. Some things just because God wills them other things are just and therefore God wills them pag. 4 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifies no more in itselfe then other acts of obedience p. 15 Expecting justification by the Law very dangerous Fifteen evils which follow thereupon mentioned pag. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26 I siebius Captaine of the Antinomians in Luthers daies p. 266 How the justification of the Gospel may stand with the good workes of the Law done by grace p. 37 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification page 42 K KIngdome of heaven not mentioned in all the O. T. p. 243 How Kingdome of heaven is taken in Mat. 5. 17. p. 264 L HOw the Law is good in eight respects p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Four acts of the Law p. 5 The two-fold use of the Law to the ungodly p. 7. A four-fold use of the Law to the godly p. 8. 9 Cautions concerning the Law p. 10 1. The word Law diversly taken ibid. p. 139. 216 2. The Law must not be separated from the spirit p. 11 3. To doe a command out of obedience to the Law and out of love are not opposite p. 12 4. Christs obedience to the Law exempts not us from obedience our selves unlesse it be in respect to those ends for which he obeyed pag. 13 5. The Law condemnes a beleevers sinne though not his person ibid. 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it p. 14 7 Distinguish betwixt what is