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
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
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
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
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
that the law of Nature condemneth Doth not Nature condemne lying couzening in your trades lusts and uncleannesse How many Trades-men are there that need not a Paul Even Tully in his Book of Offices will condemne their lying sophisticate wares and unlawfull gaine It 's much how far they saw this way Sins against naturall conscience are called Crying sins and though men have repented of them yet how long is it ere faith can still their cry Have not many Heathens been faithfull and just in their dealings It 's true that man hath not godlinesse enough who hath naturall honesty therefore there are many spirituall sins that he never humbleth himselfe for as Paul saith he knew not the motions of his heart to be sin Hence men are to be exhorted to get further light and more tendernesse then a naturall conscience can ever attaine unto Neverthelesse if men so live as if they had not this Law in their hearts they are the more inexcusable Are there not men who call themselves Christians that yet the very Heathens will condemne at that great day Vse 3. Why it is so hard to beleeve in the Lord Christ because here is nothing of nature in it it 's all supernaturall The Papists say we make an easie way to heaven for let a man be never so great a sinner yet if he doe but beleeve all is well Now the people of God sensible of their sin find nothing harder for it 's in the law of Nature they should not lye or steale but that they should beleeve in Christ for pardon when labouring under their offences here nature doth not help at all I acknowledge it 's a dispute among Divines Whether in that law implanted in Adams heart there was not also a power to beleeve in Christ when revealed But of that hereafter but the orthodox deny that he had explicite justifying faith for that was repugnant to the condition he was in But the thing I intend is to shew how supernaturall and hidden the way of beleeving is No marvell therefore if it be made such a peculiar worke of the Spirit to convince of this sin LECTURE VII ROM 2. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law doe by nature the things of the law c. THe Doctrine already gathered from these words is that The Gentiles have a law of Nature written in their hearts Which law doth consist partly in light and knowledge of speculative principles and partly in practice and obedience to practicall principles So then from hence we may consider first Of the light of Nature and then secondly Of the power of Nature and from both these we may have profitable matter and also may confute some dangerous errours which have poysoned too many I shall begin therefore with the light of Nature or Reason and shall endeavour to shew the Necessity of it and yet the Insufficiency of it It is not such a starre that can lead us to Christ In the first place take notice that this light of Nature may be considered in a three-fold respect First As it 's a relict or remnant of the image of God for howsoever The light of Nature is a remnant of Gods image the image of God did primarily consist in righteousness and true holinesse yet secondarily it did also comprehend the powers and faculties of the reasonable soule in the acts thereof And this later part abideth It is true this light of Nature comparatively to that of faith is but as a glow-worme to the Sun yet some light and irradiation it hath God when he made man had so excellently wrought his owne image in him that man could not fall unlesse that were also destroyed as they write of Phidias who made Alexanders statue yet had wrought his owne picture so artificially in it that none could break Alexanders statue but he must also spoile Phidias his image who was the maker of it And thus it is in Adams fall yet there remaineth some light still which the Apostle calleth Rom. 1. Truth he vouchsafeth that name to it They detaine the truth in unrighteousnesse Now this moon-light or glimmering of Nature is of a threefold use 1. For societies and publike Common-wealths whereby they have 1. The light of Nature usefull and necessary for the making of wholsome lawes in Common-wealths made wholsome lawes It 's wonderfull to consider how excellent the Heathens have been therein Thus Chrysostome speaking how the most excellent men need the counsell of others instanceth in Jethro's advice to Moses about choosing assistant officers That great man Moses saith he who was so potent in words and workes who was the friend of God which commanded the creatures was helped in counsell by Jethro his father-in-law an obscure man and a Barbarian Although to speak the truth Jethro when he gave this counsell was not so but had the knowledge of the true God 2. This light of nature serveth for the instigation and provocation 2. It instigateth to good duties towards God and man of men to many good actions and duties towards God and man Hence still observe that phrase They detaine reason and naturall light is bound as a prisoner by the chaines of lusts and sinfull affections which thing Aristotle doth fully set forth in his incontinent person whom he describeth to have a right opinion in the generall about that which is good yet being too much affected to some particular pleasure or profit by that meanes the better part is over-borne and therefore Aristotle saith the better part of the mind did provoke to better things This agreeth with that of Paul And as they bound captivated practicall truths towards man so they also imprisoned them about God Plato had the knowledge of one God yet he dared not to communicate it to the vulgar Therefore saith he Opificem universorum neque invenire facile neque inventum in vulgus promulgare tutum Here for feare of the people he detained this truth And Austin hath a most excellent chapter cap. 10. lib. 6. de Civit. to shew how Seneca kept the truth in unrighteousnesse he speaks of a Book Seneca wrote which now is lost against Superstitions where hee doth most freely and boldly write against the practices of their worship but saith Austin Libertas affuit scribenti non viventi I will name some passages because they are applicable to Popish Idolatry as well as Paganish Immortales does in materia vilissima immobili dedicant Numina vocant quae si spiritu accepto subitò occurrerent monstra haberentur Faciunt tam indecora honestis tam indigna liberis tam dissimillima sanis ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere cos si cum paucioribus furerent nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba But Seneca when he had spoken thus and much more in the scorne of those gods what doth he resolve upon that his wise man shall doe in those times In animi religione non habeat sed in
actibus fingat And againe Quae omnia sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa non diis grata And further Istam ignobilem deorum turbam quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit sic adorabimus ut meminerimus cultum ejus ad morem magis pertinere quà m rem Some say Seneca was coetaneous with Paul and that he had Paul's Epistles might he not if so see himselfe described in this phrase detaining the truth in unrighteousnesse But how well doth Austin in the same place stigmatize him Colebat quod reprehendebat agebat quod arguebat quod culpabat adorabat And are there not many such Popish spirits that know their superstitions and falshoods yet because of long custome will not leave them What else was the meaning of Domitianus Calderinus when speaking of going to Masse hee said Eamus ad communem errorem And so it was a speech of a disputing Sophister Sic dico quando sum in scholis sed penes nos sit aliter sentio You see then by this that naturall truth would encline to better actions but it is suppressed When I say naturall light enclineth the heart to good it is to be understood by way of object meerly shewing what is to be desired not that we have any strength naturally to what is good If you aske why truth apprehended by naturall light should be lesse efficacious to alter and new-mould the heart and life then truth received by faith for in the Scripture we reade of wonderfull conversions and the Heathens have but one story that they much boast of of one Palemon if I mistake not who was a great drunkard and came to deride Socrates while he was reading his discourse to his scholars but was so changed by that lecture that he lest off his drunkennesse This alteration was onely in the skin and not in the vitalls What then should be the difference I answer not that one truth in it selfe is stronger then another but the difference is in medio or instrumento the instrument to receive this truth When Nature receives a truth it 's but with a dimme eye and a palsie-hand but when we receive it by faith that is accompanied with the power and might of the holy Ghost The influence of truth by naturall light is like that of the Moon waterish and weak never able to ripen any thing but that of faith is like the influence of the Sun that doth heat and soon bring to maturity 3. The last use of this naturall light is to make men inexcusable 3. It makes men inexcusable for seeing they did not glorifie God according to their knowledge for that they are justly condemned This indeed is not the onely use of the light of Nature as some say but it is a maine one Rom. 1. 20. not that this is the end of God in putting these principles into us but it falleth out by our sinfulness But how are they inexcusable if they could not glorifie God by nature as they ought Some answer the Apostle speaks of excuse in regard of knowledge but if you understand it of power it is true for by our fault we are unable and none went so farre as naturally they were able And thus Nature is considered in the first place Secondly You may consider it as corrupted and obscured by sin The light of Nature as corrupted by sin is an enemy to God and goodness And in this sense it 's no help but a desperate enemy to what is good and the more reason this way the more opposition to God and thus it fell out with all the great naturall Luminists they became vaine in their reasonings the more they enquired and searched the further off they were from what is true 1 Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiveth not the things of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a man carnall and grosse in sin but a souly man one that doth excolere animam such as Tully and Aristotle Now the wiser these men were the vainer they were Chrysostome's comparison doth well agree with them As if saith hee a king should give much mony to a servant that by it he should make his family more glorious and he goeth presently and spends all his mony upon whores and bawds Thus did the Heathens As Austin wrote to a man of great parts Ornari abs te Diabolus quaerit The Divell seeks to be adorned by thee Hence Egypt that is accounted the mother of Sciences and Moses in regard of knowledge is preferred before the Egyptians yet that was the seat also of Idolaters and so the Astronomers who lifted up themselves above others in their knowledge of heavenly things brought in those monsters into heaven and attributed worship to them and in their worship of their gods they added many feasts and sports Thus they invented an happinesse which Austin calleth Scyllaeum bonum consisting of humane and brutish parts If you ask how this naturall light cometh to be thus obscured I answer three waies 1. By ill education This The light of Nature obscured three waies is like the first concoction or the first settling of the limbs of a man Secondly By long custome and degeneration Hence some Nations have by their publike lawes allowed grosse sins lawfull as some Nations have allowed robberies some incest some that all old men should be throwne downe headlong a steep hill Thirdly By the just judgement of God therefore three times in Rom. 1. God is said to give them up to sin Thirdly You may speak of Nature as informed and enlightened The light of Nature inform'd by Gods word an excellent help by Gods word and while it 's thus you need not cast this Hagar out of doores Let Scripture and the word of God lay the foundation stone and then Reason may build upon it It is Stella his comparison It is with Faith and Reason as with the mould that is at the root of the barren and fruitlesse tree take the mould out and throw in muck or other compost and then put the mould in it will much help the tree which hindred it before Thus lay aside Reason at first and then receive truths by Faith and afterwards improve them by Reason and it will excellently help Divine truths are not founded upon Reason but Scripture yet Reason may bear them up as you see the elme or wall bear up the vine but the elme or wall doth not bring forth the fruit onely the vine doth that As long therefore as the light of Nature is not the rule but ruled and squared by Gods word so long it cannot deceive us The light of Nature as it is a relict of Gods image is necessary in religious and morall things and that two waies The second grand consideration is That the light of Nature is necessary in religious and morall things though it be not sufficient We speak of the light of Nature in the first consideration as it is the residue of
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
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
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
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
was the great mistake of the Jewes they gloried and boasted of the Law but how of the knowledge of it and externall observation without looking to Christ and this was to glory in the shadow without the substance 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his righteousnesse 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his obedience to it is made ours and obedience unto the Law is made ours and so in him as our surety we fulfill the Law I know this assertion hath many learned and godly adversaries but as farae as I can see yet the Scripture seemeth to hold it forth Rom. 5. There is a parallel made of the first Adam and his off-spring with Christ the second Adam and his seed and the Apostle proveth that we are made righteous by Christ as sinners in him which was partly by imputation so 2 Corinth 5. ult as Christ is made our sin by imputation so we his righteousnesse So Rom. 8. 3 4. That which was impossible to the Law Christ sent his Son that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit I know there are answers made to these places but the proper discussion of them will be in the handling of justification only here is an obvious Objection If the righteousnesse Object of Christ be made ours so that we may be said to fulfill the Law then we are still justified by a covenant of works and so there is no new covenant of grace I answer Learned men as Beza and Perkins Answ have affirmed that we obtaine eternall life according to that rule Doe this and live because of Christs fulfilling the Law as our surety for the imputation of it doth not make it cease to be our reall righteousnesse though it be not our inherent righteousnesse But I see not why we need grant the consequence viz. Because Christs fulfilling of the Law is made ours therefore we have eternall life by the Law and the reason is because this righteousnesse of Christs is not ours by working but by beleeving Now the Law in that command Doe this and live did require our personall working and righteousnesse so that we cannot be said to have salvation by that rule because it is not the righteousnesse which we in person have wrought and this will fully appeare if you consider in the next place the subject to whom Christ is made righteousnesse and that is to him that The beleever is the subject to whom Christ is made righteousnesse beleeveth he doth not say to him that worketh so that we have not eternall life by our Doe this but by beleeving or resting upon Christ his Doe this And this phrase doth plainly exclude Stapletons and other Papists observations on this place as if the righteousnesse by faith or of Christ were the same in kind with the righteousnesse of works differing only gradually as an infant and a growne man for if so the Apostle would have said working and not beleeving It is a great skill in Divinity to amplifie this righteousnesse of faith without works so as neither the Papist or the Antinomian may incourage themselves thereby but of that in some other place As you take notice of the subject Beleever so the universality every one which doth take in both Jew and Gentile Therefore the Jew could not or ought not to think that those externall rites and observations could bring them to a true righteousnesse Lastly consider in the Text for what end Christ is thus the Righteousness is the end for which Christ is thus the perfection of the Law perfection of the Law and that is for righteousnesse The proper seat of handling this is in the doctrine of Justification only let me briefly answer a Question made by some Whether the righteousnesse of faith or that we have by Christ be the same in nature with the righteousnesse of workes and of the Law Stapleton saith They must needs be one because the Law will direct to no other righteousnesse then that of its owne It is true the Law strictly taken will not properly and perse direct to any righteousnesse but that which the Law requireth yet by accident and indirectly it may yea as it was given by Moses it did directly and properly intend Christ though not primarily as some think but finding us unable to attaine to its owne righteousnesse did then lead us unto Christ Yet these two righteousnesses are divers rather then contrary unlesse in respect of justification and so indeed its impossible to be justified by both those waies otherwise they are both together in the same subject yea a righteousnesse of faith doth necessarily draw along with it in the same subject a righteousnesse of works though it be imperfect and so insufficient to justifie Vse Is Christ the end of the Law for righteousnesse then The beleever hath great cause to blesse God for providing such a righteousness for him let the beleever blesse and praise God for providing a righteousnesse and such a righteousnesse for him How destitute and naked was thy condition Had justice taken thee by the throat and bid thee pay what thou owest thou couldst not have returned that answer Let mee alone and I will pay thee all Neither Angels nor men could provide this righteousnesse for thee Doest thou thank God for providing clothes for thy body food for thy belly an house for habitation Oh above all thank him that he hath provided a righteousnesse for thy soule Thou troubled soule because of sin thou thinkest with thy selfe Oh if I had no sin if I were guilty of no corruption how well were it O ye glorious Angels and Saints ye are happy because ye have a righteousnesse Why doest thou not consider that God hath found out for thee even for thee in this world a righteousnesse whereby thou art accepted of him Againe consider it is such a righteousnesse that satisfieth and pleaseth God Thy holinesse cannot content him for justification but that of Christ can As the light of the Stars and Moon cannot dispell totally the darknesse of the night only the light of the Sun can doe that LECTURE XXIX MAT. 5. 17. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandements and shall teach men so shall be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven OUr Saviour being to vindicate the Law from all corrupt The Text opened glosses of the Pharisees he doth in the first place as Chrysostome thinketh remove the odium that might be cast upon him as if he did indeed destroy the Law for it was then generally received that only was Law which the Pharisees declared to be so And this he doth ver 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law The reason he giveth is from the perpetuall nature of the Law heaven and earth the whole world shall sooner fall into pieces then any tittle of that And the
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
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
a great part of it they make it commonitory and not obligatory and the power of man they make to be the rule of his duty whereas it is plaine by Scripture that that measure of grace which God giveth any man upon earth is not answerable to the duty commanded there It is true Hierome said It was blasphemy to say God commanded any thing impossible but in this sense impossible absolutely so that man could never have fulfilled it 5. When they doe oppose it to Christ. And this was the Jewes 5. When they oppose it to Christ fundamentall errour and under this notion doth the Apostle argue against it in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians And howsoever they would have compounded Christ and the Law together yet this composition was to make opposition There can be no more two Suns in the firmament then two things to justifie Therefore the reconciliation of the Law and Christ cannot be in matter of justification by way of mixture but yet one is antecedaneous and subordinate to the other and is no more to be opposed then the end to the meanes Nor is it any wonder that the Law through errour may be opposed to Christ seeing that Christ may be opposed to Christ as in Popery Christ sanctifying is opposed to Christ justifying for when we charge them with derogating from Christ in holding our graces doe justifie Nay say they we set him up more then you for we hold He doth make us holy That this holinesse doth justifie Thus you see Christ in his works is opposed to Christ in his justifying And here by the way you may see that that onely is the best way of advancing Christ or grace which is in a Scripture way and not what is possible for us to think as the Papists doe 6. When they look for justification by it and this is a dangerous 6. When they expect justification by it and desperate errour this is that which reigneth in Popery this is that inbred canker-worme that eateth in the hearts of all naturally They know not a Gospel-righteousnesse and for this end they reade the Law they heare it preached onely that they may be selfe-saviours And certainly for this two-fold end I may think God suffers this Antinomian errour to grow first That Ministers may humble themselves they have not set forth Christ and grace in all the glory of it If Bernard said he did not love to reade Tully because he could not reade the Name of Christ there how much rather may we say that in many Sermons in many a mans ministery the drift and end of all his preaching is not that Christ may be advanced And in Christians in Protestants it is a farre greater sin then in Papists for it is well observed by Peter Martyr that the Apostle doth deale more mildly in the Epistle to the Romans then in the Epistle to the Galatians and the reason is because the Galatians were at first well instructed in the matter of justification but afterwards did mixe other things with Christ therefore he thunders against them I desire to know nothing saith Paul 1 Corinth 2. but Jesus Christ and him crucified And secondly another end may be to have these truths beaten out more As The deity of Christ because of the Arrians and Grace in predestination and conversion by the Pelagians so The grace of justification because not onely of Papists but Antinomians And certainly these things were much pressed by Luther at first as appeares in his Epistle to the Galatians but perceiving how this good doctrine was abused he speaks in his Commentary on Genesis which was one of his last workes much against Antinomists But yet because generally people are fallen into a formality of truthes it 's good to set up Christ And the poyson of this opinion will be seen in these things 1. It overthroweth the nature of grace And this holdeth against 1. Justification by the Law overthrowes the nature of grace the workes of the Gospel as well as those of the Law Take notice of this that justification by workes doth not onely exclude the workes of the Law but all workes of the Gospel yea and the workes of grace also Hence you see the opposition is of works and of grace Here the Apostle makes an immediate opposition whereas the Papist would say Paul hath a non sequitur for datur tertium workes of and by grace But workes doe therefore oppose grace because the frequent acception of it in the Scripture is for the favour of God without us not any thing in us I will not deny but that the word grace is used for the effects of it inherent holinesse wrought in us as in that place Grow in grace and knowledge but yet commonly grace is used for the favour of God And the ignorance of the use of the word in Scripture makes them so extoll inherent holinesse as if that were the grace which should save us As saith the Papist a bird cannot fly without wings the fish swimme without scales the Sculler without his oare cannot get to the haven so without this grace wee cannot fly into heaven and that as the meritorius cause But this is ignorance of the word grace and so the troubles and unbeliefe of the godly heart because it is not so holy as it would be cometh from the mistake of the word grace I shall anticipate my selfe in another subject if I should tell you how comprehensive this word is implying no merit or causality on our part for acceptance but the cleane contrary and therefore for God to deale with us in grace is more then in love for Adam if he had continued righteous he had been partaker of life this had been the gift of God but not by the grace of God as it is strictly taken for Adam was not in a contrary condition to life I will not trouble you with Pareus his apprehension that thinketh Adams righteousnesse could not be called grace therefore reproveth Bellarmine for his title De gratia primi hominis neither will hee acknowledge those habits of holinesse in Christ to be called grace because there was not a contrary disposition in his nature to it as it is in ours And this also Cameron presseth that besides the indebitum which grace implyeth in every subject there is also a demeritum of the contrary Thus then justification is of grace because thy holinesse doth not onely not deserve this but the cleane contrary Now what a cordiall may this be to the broken heart exercised with its sinnes How may the sicke say There I finde health the poore say There I finde riches And as for the Papists who say they set up grace and they acknowledge grace yet first it must be set downe in what sense wee take grace It is not every man that talketh of grace doth therefore set up Scripture-grace Who knoweth not that the Pelagians set up grace They determined that whosoever did not
true that the text is here corrupt and Whether the Psalmists meaning be not perverted For the first in the Hebrew it's there line but the Apostle following the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they had read Colam for Cavam But the Answer is that the Septuagint regarded the sense and the Psalmist having spoken before of the words or speech of heaven they therefore interpret according to that sense And by line is meant the Structure and exact composing of all these things which declareth the admirable wisdome of the Maker As for the later it is indeed generally taken as if the Apostle did speak this of the Apostles preaching the Gospel which the Psalmist did of the heavens insomuch that the Lutherans interpret all the former part of the Psalme allegorically Others think the Apostle alledgeth that place allusively not by way of argument as in that place of the Epistle to the Corinthians where the Apostle applyeth the speech about Manna to matter of liberality But Jansenius and Vasquez among the Papists and Beza with others among the orthodox think the Apostle keepeth to the literall meaning of the Psalmist as if this should be the Apostles meaning Israel hath heard for God made known himselfe even to the very Heathens by the creatures how much more to the Jewes by the Prophets Which way soever you take it it proveth that God hath a schoole of Nature by his creatures as well as a schoole of Grace by his Ministers The last proofe is from John 1. He is the true light which enlightneth every man coming into the world for so we think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth referre to man not light though Socinus and Grotius plead much for it Some indeed understand this of the light of Grace but it will be more universally and necessarily true of the light of Reason which is in infants radically though not actually I shall not here relate what unsound Positions an Antinomian Authour hath in a manuscript Sermon upon this place because it is not pertinent So then there is an implanted sense and feeling of a deity which made Tertullian say O anima naturaliter Christiana and Cyprian Summa est delicti nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non potes If you object that the Scripture speaks of the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be understood of a distinct and obedient knowledge of him And as for some Atheists spoken of that have expressedly professed it what they did was partly in derision of the many gods as Socrates and another who needing a fire threw a statue of Hercules into the fire saying Age Hercules XIII laborem subiturus adesto obsonium nobis cocturus Besides they did this with their tongue more then their heart as appeareth by Diagoras who when he had made a famous oration against a deity the people came applauding him and said he had almost perswaded them but only they thought that if any were God he was for his eloquence sake and then this wretch like Herod was content to be thought a god The second Question is Whether the mystery of the Trinity and The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature of the Incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature And here certainly we must answer negatively for the Apostle 2 Corinth 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospell saith It hath not entered into the heart of a man to conceive of them which is to be understood not onely of the blessed joy and peace of those truths but also as they are truths so that all these things are of meere supernaturall revelation Hence we reade that when by reason of the Arrians there was an hot dispute about these mysteries there was a voice heard from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fall of the wise men I doe acknowledge that Austin and others have sought the foot-steps or representations of the Trinity in the creatures yea Nierembergius a Jesuit de origine sacrae Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 3. doth hold that God did intend by the workes of creation to declare the mysteries of graces as by those artificiall things of the Ark Tabernacle and Temple he intended spirituall mysteries but this is false But then they did first know and beleeve this doctrine by Scripture and then afterwards goe to represent it Yet it must be confessed that all these Similies have scarce one foot much lesse foure to run on The Schoole-men speak of the three things in every creature Esse Posse Operari But especially that is taken up about the soule when it understandeth or knoweth and when it loveth and the Son of God is represented by that Verbum mentis and the holy Ghost by Amor. Now here is a mistake for Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1. by John imitating the Chaldee not in respect of any such scholasticall sense but because he doth reveale and make knowne the will of God to us so the union of the humane nature and the divine in one person though learned men give many examples yet none come up to the full resemblance And indeed if you could give the like instance it were not wonderfull or singular We conclude then that the Scriptures are the onely ladder whereby we climb up to these things and our understandings are of such a little stature that we must climb up into the tree of life the Scriptures to see Jesus The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The third Question concerning this naturall light is Whether it be sufficient for salvation For there are some that hold If any man of whatsoever Nation he be worship God according to the light of Nature and so serve him he may be saved Hence they have coined a distinction of a three-fold piety Judaica Christiana and Ethnica Therefore say they What Moses was to the Jewes and Christ to the Christians the same is Philosophy or the knowledge of God by nature to Heathens But this opinion is derogatory to the Lord Christ for onely by faith in his Name can we be saved as the Scripture speaketh And certainely if the Apostle argued that Christ died in vaine if works were joyned to him how much more if he be totally excluded It is true it seemeth a very hard thing to mans reason that the greater part of the world being Pagans and Heathens with all their infants should be excluded from heaven Hence because Vedelius a learned man did make it an aggravation of Gods grace to him to chuse and call him when so many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned this speech as being full of horridnesse a scoffing Remonstrant takes and sets it forth odiously in the Frontispiece of his Book But though our Reason is offended yet we must judge according to the way of the Scripture which makes Christ the onely way for salvation If
regard of their positive nature as well as to good 2. God doth this in the way of his Providence as a Creatour the other he doth in the way of Predestination as a father in Christ 3. The other aide may be said to be due as our Divines speak of originall righteousnesse upon a supposition that a man is made a creature to do such actions yet not properly a debt but that for our sin we are deprived of it but this speciall help of grace cannot be called so 3. It is wholly unable to work any good thing All this while we Man by the power of nature wholly unable to performe good actions have considered the power of man but as in the lower region and if you doe consider him in reference to good things so he hath no power or will or free-will at all but as Austin said before Luther it 's servum arbitrium a servant and inslaved will to sin onely Indeed we have not lost our understandings or our wills but to know or will that which is good is wholly lost Though we have not lost the will yet we have the rectitude in that will whereby we should encline to good And this may be proved from many Arguments 1. From all those places of Scripture which declare our estate 1. Because our natures are full of sin and corruption to be full of sin and corruption and altogether wicked Now Doe men gather grapes of thornes or figs of thistles Hence the Father compareth us well to the ship in a tempest that is destitute of a Pilot we are dashed continually upon rocks though this speak of the negative onely not the positive corruption 2. All those places which speak of grace and conversion and 2. Because grace and conversion are the work of God regeneration as the work of God As for those places where we are said to repent and to turne unto God in time we shall cleare only these Texts prove that all the good things we doe they are the workes of the Lord not that God beleeveth or repenteth in us but he worketh those actions in us efficiently which we doe formally and vitally 3. All those places whereby glory and praise is to be given 3. Because glory is to be given to God onely not to our selves unto God onely and not unto our selves What hast thou thou hast not received We are to glory in nothing because no good thing is ours Therefore we bring forth good things as Sarahs dead womb brought forth a child it was not a child of nature but a child of the meere promise thus are all our graces And indeed if we could either in whole or part work our own conversion wee might thanke God and our wils But how absurd would this be Lord I thank thee for the turning of my heart when I was willing to turne it 4. It cannot prepare or dispose it selfe for the grace of justification Nature of it selfe cannot dispose for justification or sanctification and the reasons why or sanctification As it cannot immediatly work any good thing so neither can a naturall man dispose or prepare himself for the great works of grace There is no truth in such an assertion Let man doe what he can naturally God will meet him graciously and the reasons are plaine 1. Because no naturall thing is in it selfe an order or a disposition to a supernaturall thing for they differ in their whole kind and nature Hence it is that we never read of any Heathens that by the improvement of a naturall light had supernaturall vouchsafed unto them 2. Those places that speak of our totall corruption intensively onely evill and extensively all the thoughts of a man are evill and protensively continually do sufficiently declare that we cannot prepare our selves to meet God 3. If wee could prepare or dispose ourselves to grace then the greatest cause of glory would still be in a mans owne selfe For Why doth Peter repent and not Judas Because may some say he disposed and set himselfe to repent and not Judas But still here is the Question Why did Peter set himselfe to repent and not Judas Here it must be ultimately resolved either into the grace of God or the will of man 4. All those similitudes that the Scripture useth do illustrate this thing We are not said to be blind or lame but dead in sin now did Lazarus prepare himself to rise So it s called Regeneration Can a man dispose himself to have life I know these comparisons must not be extended too far yet the Scripture using such expressions to declare our utter inability we may well press those breasts of the Scripture so far and bring out no blood The parched earth doth not dispose it selfe for the raine nor doth the cold ice of it selfe thaw which is the Fathers Similie Yet fifthly We may hold truly some antecedaneous workes upon the There are and may be some preparatory and antecedaneous workes upon the heart before justification or sanctification heart before those graces be bestowed on us This take to antidote against the Antinomian who speaks constantly of the soule taking Christ even while it 's a grievous polluted soule as if there were no polishing of this crooked timber and rough stone but even taken out of the quarry and so immediately put into the building Those in the Acts that were pricked in heart were yet bid to repent and so they cried out What shall we doe to be saved The sick feeleth his burden before he cometh for ease so that a grosse sinner is not immediately put out of his vile waies into Christ onely these limitations you must take 1. That all these things sight of sin trembling for feare confused desires they are the workes of Gods grace moving us they doe not come from our owne naturall strength 2. These are not absolutely necessary in every one We know how Matthew and Lydia did follow Christ and God saith he was found of some that did not seek him Paul was in a most cursed indisposition when the Lord called him but generally God takes this way 3. These are not necessary antecedents so as the grace of conversion doth necessarily follow Wee reade of Cain and Judas troubled for sin These are a wildernesse that a man may dye in and never goe into Canaan There may be throes and pangs when yet no childe but wind is to be delivered Hence a people that have been civill have not been called but Publicans and Harlots The object of election is for the most part few for number infirme for power and sinfull for conversation though in the godly these are needles that will draw in the threed yet this state must not be called a third middle estate between regenerate and unregenerate as some feigne Lastly none of these workings can be called so properly preparations or dispositions in themselves but onely intentionally in God Our Saviour looked on a young man
they had a speciall help and aide from God to doe that but here the Apostle in the Text is cleare They doe by nature the things of the law Some doe not like that distinction They may doe the substance of the worke but not the manner of a good worke because they think the substance doth comprehend that indeed which makes a good work howsoever they agree that the externall act may be done Thus Ahab hee externally humbled himselfe and some think that Uriah which Esay calls The faithfull witnesse he took to him to be the same with him that brought in the Altar of Damascus so that though he was an idolater and an ungodly man yet he was reputed a faithfull man in his word And certainly this is something to make many men inexcusable They may forbear those acts of grosse impiety which they doe supposing they have not customarily or by the just judgement of God throwne themselves into the power of such sins not that this will help to save them onely their punishment will be lesse Thus Fabritius and Camillus saith Austin will be lesse punished then Verres or Catiline not because these were holy but because they were lesse wicked minora vitia virtutes vocamus I know it 's a question Whether a godly man can doe more good then he doth or lesse evill then he doth but this may be handled in the controversall part we speak now of a wicked man who can doe no good at all unlesse in the externall act Yet 10. All that they doe is a sin before God This is an antidote Whatsoever meere naturall men do is sin before God because 1. The act wants faith the person reconciliation with God 2. It proceeds not from a regenerate nature to the former Whatsoever they have done though for the matter glorious yet they were but glorious sins for 1. They could not come from faith or one reconciled with God and the person must be first accepted before the action Heb. 11. Without faith it 's impossible to please God 2. It could not come from a regenerate nature and therefore the tree not being good the fruit was also bad It 's not in Divinity as in Morall Philosophy where justa justè agendo fimus justi but we have the esse or being first and then the operari It 's a question worth the disputing Whether the grace of God works the act of beleeving and other graces in us first and then by them we receive the habits The Papists and Arminians and some others go that way but it is not consonant to Scripture as may be shewed hereafter 3. They could not be good if you regard the end They could do 3. 'T is not done in reference to Gods glory nothing for the glory of God This made Theophylact say Wee could not instance in one good Heathen for that which they did was for their vain-glory carnalis cupidit as non aliâ sanatur one divell did but cast out another and if they did intend some particular good end as to relieve the miserable to help the common-wealth this was not enough for the ultimate and chiefe end ought to be intended by them 4. There is no promise annexed to any act that wants saith Lastly There is no promise of God made to any thing a man doth that hath not faith Ahab indeed and Nebuchadnezzar had temporall rewards but in what sense I shall shew in answering the Objections Use To bewaile the wofull condition of man by nature How is every bird in the aire and beast in the field in a better naturall condition then they are This is worse then to be blind to be lame for our soules are all blind lame deafe yea and dead in sin What a sad thing is it to be all the day and yeare long damning our soules If we eat or drink we sin if we buy or sell we sin And consider that sin is the greatest evill and that onely which God loaths and abhorres Let all thou dost therefore terrifie thee and make thee to tremble let this make thee cry for grace as the poore blind and lame did that they might be healed And because you doe not feele this or are unwilling to be heard therefore you are the more miserable Nolunt phrenetici ligari lethargici excitari LECTURE X. ROM 2. 14. For if the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law c. WE have already positively and plainly so farre as we conceived necessary declared and proved the truth about the power and ability of a man by Nature to doe that which is good now it remaineth we should antidote against those objections that doe militate against this truth and that indeed with much shew of reason for never have men been more witty then when they have undertaken to be the patrons of Nature But Austin well called it vitreum acumen the more it glitters the easier it 's broken The Heathens are very obstinate in propugning mans power Ignavis opus est auxilio divino saith Seneca the Tragedian and so the other Seneca Deorum quidem munus esse quod vivimus nostrum verò quòd bene sanctâ—que vivimus and that of Tully is very arrogant lib. 3. de nat deorum Quia sibi quisque virtutem acquirit neminem è sapientibus unquam de ea gratias Deo egisse and saith he We are praised for our vertue which could not be if it were the gift of God and not of our selves But how different are the holy men in the Scripture from these wise men of the world who when they have been enabled by God to doe any good thing have not taken the glory of it to themselves And as Joab did about Rabbah when he had taken it sent to David to come and take all the glory so doe they say Not I but the grace of God which worketh in mee for so 1 Cor. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood which was present with mee not which did work with mee First therefore they say If so be we are not able to doe any thing There is in mans nature a passive capacity of grace which is not in stones and beasts towards our salvation this is to turne men into stockes and stones or beasts so no difference between them and us But we say Although those similitudes the Scripture holds forth doe prove our inability for that which is good yet they must not be made alike in all things It 's true to convert men is to make children unto Abraham out of stones yet we must not think that is therefore an universall likenesse between men and stones For first consider this vast dissimilitude In stones and beasts there is no passive capacity of grace but in man there is We say there is a power for grace in a mans nature and the Papists say there is a power onely they say it 's an active power though remote we say
only a passive There is a power to be converted to God which is not in stones or beasts they say there is a power to convert or turn to God here is a great difference Besides we may consider these degrees in the creatures 1. There is an inclination to such an act as in the fire to burne 2. A spontaneous inclination to some acts accompanied with sense and sensible apprehensions as in beasts 3. A willing inclination accompanied with reason or judgement and this is in man Now because man is thus affected therefore God in converting though he doth it by a potent work yet by arguments which we never use to horses or brute beasts and although man hath lost that rectitude in his will and mind yet he hath not lost the faculties themselves therefore though he be theologically dead yet he is ethically alive being to be wrought upon by arguments Hence is that saying To will is of nature To will well of grace To will ill of corrupt nature Hence we may grant those objections that if a man had not this free-will if you do not extend it to good things there could be no conversion or obedience for grace doth not destroy but perfect nature 2. This putteth men upon speaking and preaching contradictions To presse a duty and yet to acknowledge Gods grace or gift to do it is no contradiction For so some have said that the Calvinists though they be Calvinists in their Doctrines yet they are Arminians in their Uses And they say How incongruous is it to tell us we can doe nothing of our selves and then to make this use Therefore let us seek out for the grace of Christ But to answer 1. This contradiction may be cast as well upon Christ and Paul Take Christ for an instance John 6. in that Sermon he bade the Jewes labour for that meat that perisheth not and yet at the same time said None can come unto mee except my Father draw him Might not the Arminian say How can these two things stand together So John 15. our Saviour telleth them Without him they can doe nothing and yet at the same time he exhorteth them to abide in him and keep his commandements So Paul take two instances from him Rom. cap. 9. cap. 11. The Apostle there sheweth God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and that it is not of him that runneth or willeth but of God that calleth yet he bids them that stand take heed lest they fall and Be not high-minded but feare So Phil. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with feare and trembling for it 's God that worketh in you both to will and to doe This reason in their sense would quite overthrow the former Nay say they it being attributed thus to God and to man it seemeth both doe it How this may be answered we shall see anon But to make us speak contradictions because we presse a duty and yet acknowledge Gods grace or gift to doe it is to make a perpetuall discord between precepts and promises For the same things which God commands us to doe doth he not also promise to doe for us as to circumcise our hearts and to walk in his commandements How much better is that of Austins O man in Gods precepts acknowledge what thou oughtest to doe in his promises acknowledge that thou canst not doe it But 2. we may returne upon them that their Sermons and Prayers are contradictions they say they can doe it and then they pray God they may doe it They say the Will may receive the grace of God and may obey God calling and then they pray God would make them obey his calling as much as to say O Lord make me to obey if I will 3. This evacuateth the whole nature of Gods precepts and commands Mans inability to observe Gods precepts maketh not void the nature of the precepts because this inability proceeded from mans owne fault A thing said to be impossible three waies For say they Is not this to make God mock us as if wee should bid the blind man see or tell a dwarfe if he would touch the heavens with his finger he should have so much mony Now to this many things are to be said as first If these things were absolutely and simply impossible that which they say would be true but a thing may be said to be impossible three waies 1. Simply and universally even to the power of God and so all those things are that imply a contradiction and this impossibility ariseth from the nature of the thing not from any defect in God Yea we may say with one Potentissimè-hoc Deus non potest 2. There may be a thing impossible in its kind as for Adam to reach the heavens for a man to work above naturall causes 3. That which is possible in it selfe to such a subject but becomes impossible accidentally through a mans fault Now for a man to be commanded that which through his owne fault he becometh unable to doe is no illusion or cruelty If a creditor require his debt of a bankrupt who hath prodigally spent all and made himselfe unable to pay what unrighteousnesse is this Therefore they are but odious instances of touching the skies of bidding blind men to see for this Rule observe Whatsoever is so impossible that it is extra officium debitum and potentiam unquam datam that indeed were absurd to presse upon men Again consider that the commands of God doe imply if any power then more then they will acknowledge for they suppose a man can doe all of himselfe without the grace of God and therefore indeed the old Pelagian and the new Socinian speak more consonantly then these that divide it between grace and the power of man Lastly The commands of God are for many other ends as to convince Gods commands though they be not a measure of our power may serve to convince humble c. and humble though they be not a measure or rule of our power That place Deut. 30. 11. is much urged by the adversary where Moses seemeth to declare the easinesse of that command and certainly it hath a very great shew for as for that answer That Moses speaketh of the easinesse of knowing and not fulfilling Calvin doth not stand upon it and indeed of our selves we are not able to know the Law of God The answer then to this may be taken out of Rom. 10. 11. That howsoever Moses speaks of the Law yet Paul interprets it of the Gospel What then Doth Paul pervert the scope of Moses Some doe almost say so but the truth is the Law as is to be shewed against the generall mistake if it was not in it selfe a covenant of grace yet it was given Evangelically and to Evangelicall purposes which made the Apostle alledge that place and therefore the Antinomian doth wholly mistake in setting up the Law as some horrid Gorgon or Medusa's head as is
naturall necessity Life must be extended as far as death now the death threatned was not only a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God 2. Because his posterity become guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his owne person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deale very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed to an heire with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meere Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his definition of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as Tully to maintaine their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implieth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle doth in reference to Christs death but more largely for Gods gracious ordering of such mercies and spirituall benefits to us by the death of Christ for the Covenant of grace implyeth Christs death it being a Covenant of reconciliation Now because there is in the Covenant of grace something of a Covenant and something of a Testament also hence some doe call it a Testament-Covenant because it is of a mixt nature The rise of the Hebrew word Berith is variously conjectured some make it to come from a word that signifieth to eate because of the sacrifices and feasts that were at a Covenant some from a word that signifieth to cut because then in the striking of the Covenant there was a division of the beast that was killed some from the word that signifieth to create as also to order and dispose things by way of likenesse some from a word that signifieth to be pure and to choose either because it 's by agreement or because in Covenants they ought to deale without all fraud but I stand not upon these things By this which hath been said it may appeare that the Covenant God made with Adam though it be truly called a Covenant yet no waies a Testament because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam Now to all this that hath been said there must this caution be added That a Covenant is not so properly said to be with God and man as between man and man for among them consent is requisite and doth mutually concurre to make the Covenant valid but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this consent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man Therefore if you regard the use of the word and the application of it it doth denote Gods decree and will or promise about things whether about the irrationall creatures or the reasonable Such was Gods Covenant not to drowne the world and Gods Covenant with day and night yea Gods Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumcise his childe And thus it was with Adam Gods Covenant did not depend properly upon his consent and acceptation for he was bound to doe as God commanded whether hee would agree or no. That Adams consent was not necessary to make the Covenant valid doth appeare in that he was bound to accept what God did require And it 's indeed disputed Whether Adam did so much as know and if he did not know he could not consent that God did indent with him as a publike person and so all his
that was occasionall and necessary therefore not to be a ground for perpetuall command for other Churches did it not as appeareth by the almes that were gathered nor was it laid necessarily upon all to sell what they had as appeareth by Paul's speech to Ananias Use 1. If God be so angry with those that abuse naturall God is more offended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospell light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifuga as Bats and Owles are In one Chapter God is said three times to deliver them up because they did not glorifie God according to Natures light how much more then according to the Gospels light Gravis est lux conscientiae said Seneca but gravior est lux Evangelii The light of the Ministery and Word must needs be more troublesome to thy sinfull waies Vse 2. Of Examination whether even among Christians may not be found men no better then Heathens Now such are 1. Ignorant people how few have any knowledge of God 2. Violent Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens adherers to former Idololatricall courses taken up by fore-fathers There is this difference between an Idolater and a true Beleever The Beleever is like those creatures that you can make nothing lye on their backs unlesse it be fastened by some Scripture or reason but the Heathen is like the Camell that had a back for burdens on purpose so that any idolatry he would bear though it were tyed on by arguments 3. Such as are inordinately distracted about the things of this world Matth. 6. After these things doe the Heathens seek Hast thou not much of an Heathen in thee 4. Such as rage at Christ and his reformation Psal 2. Why doe the Heathens rage LECTURE IX ROM 2. 14. For the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law WE have handled those things that concerne the light and conduct of Nature now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature for herein are two extreme errours one of the Pelagian Papist and Arminian with others who lift up this power too high Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory workes upon the heart of a man holding that Christ immediately communicateth himselfe to grosse sinners abiding so and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ which all orthodox do yet they expresse it in an unsound sense comparing God unto a Physician that doth violently open the sick mans throat and poure downe his physick whether he will or no whereas God though he doth convert fortiter yet he doth it also suaviter Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing we will lay downe these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is There is in man a naturall power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing not indeed a Scripture name but meerly ecclesiasticall and hath been so abused that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded but if we speak of the quid sit and not the quid possit the being of it and not the working of it we must necessarily acknowledge it The neerest expression to the word Free-will is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over his owne will but generally the Scripture useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as we intend There is in all men naturally that power whereby through the help of Reason he chooseth this and refuseth another thing onely this must not be extended to the things of grace Now to say what this Free-will is is very hard Perkins following some Schoole-men maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will others a third reall distinct power from them but it may probably be thought that it is nothing but the Will in electing or refusing such things so that we call it the Will in those things its necessarily carried out to as to will what is good and not sin as sin and then Free-will when it 's carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it Even as in the Understanding while the Understanding doth consider first Principles it 's called Intellectus while Conclusions that are gathered from them it 's called Ratio Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us when they say we turne men into beasts for we hold the Understanding going before and the Will after and this is more then a meere spontaneous inclination in things naturall Therefore it is that wee doe not bid the fire burne or perswade an horse to goe because there is not Understanding or Will in these things as there is in a man 2. This which is left in us is not able to performe naturall actions This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance without the generall help of God That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally must still be limited to his proper sphere to naturall and civill actions or some externally religious duties but even then we must acknowledge a generall help or assistance of God without which we could not doe any naturall thing so that place in the Acts In him we live and move and have our being by which we prove that God doth not onely give us the principles of being and moving but we move in him i. e. by him Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians that thought without the generall aide of God a man might move his finger or write and speak There have been some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power of actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then meer preservation of our being no concourse or aide of God helping us in the action Thus Durand of old and one Dodo of late who hath written a Book onely to that purpose but the place above said doth evidently convince it and we see that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning which could not be otherwise then by denying his actuall aide to the working of the fire For to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies were to make the miracle there where the Scripture doth not lay it If you aske then why this may not be called a speciall help of God as well as that whereby we are inabled to beleeve or repent I answer there is a great deale of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in