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
is to be observed against the Antinomians who to disparage the Law may say that was written in stones what good can that doe May we not also say The doctrine of the Gospel that is written in paper and what can that doe 7. But Christ doth perpetually continue as a rule and law to them 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule appeares Which may thus appeare 1. From the different phrases that the Apostle useth concerning the Ceremoniall Law which are no where applyed to the Morall Law 1. From the different Phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law And these Chemnitius doth diligently reckon up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 14. So again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 7. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antiquare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 senescere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evanescere Heb. 8. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abrogatio Heb. 7. 18. Now saith he these words are not used of the Morall Law that it is changed or waxeth old or is abrogated which doe denote a mutation in the Law but when it speakes of the Morall Law it saith We are dead to it We are redeemed from the curse of it Which phrases doe imply the change to be made in us and not in the Law If therefore the Antinomians could bring such places that would prove it were as unlawfull for us to love the Lord because the Morall Law commands it as we can prove it unlawfull to circumcise or to offer sacrifices then they would doe something for their purpose 2. From the sanctification and holinesse that is required of the 2. From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever beleever which is nothing but conformity to the Law so that when we reade the Apostle speaking against the Law yet that he did not meane this of the Law as a rule and as obliging us to the obedience thereof will easily appeare For when the Apostle Gal. 5. 4. had vehemently informed them of their wofull condition who would be justified by the Law yet ver 13. and 14. pressing them not to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh he giveth this reason For all the Law is fulfilled in one word even in this Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe What doth the Apostle use contradictions in the same Chapter Presse them to obey the Law and yet reprove them for desiring to be under it No certainly but when they would seek justification by the Law then he reproveth them and when on the other side they would refuse obedience to the Law then he admonisheth them to the contrary As for their distinguishing between the matter of the Law and the Law we have already proved it to be a contradiction 3. In that disobedience to it is still a sinne in the beleever For 3 In that disobedience is still a sin there can be no sinne unlesse it be a transgression of a Law as the Apostle John defineth sinne Now then when David commits adultery when Peter denyeth Christ are not these sinnes in them If so is not Davids sinne a sinne because it is against such and such a Commandement As for their evasion it is a sinne against the Law as in the hand of Christ and so against the love of Christ and no otherwayes this cannot hold for then there should be no sinnes but sinnes of unkindnesse or unthankfulnesse As this Law is in the hand of Christ so murder is a sin of unkindnesse but as it is against the Law simply in it self so it is a sinne of such kinde as murder and not of another kinde so that the consideration of Christs love may indeed be a great motive to obey the commands of God yet that doth not hinder the command it selfe from obliging and binding of us as it is the will of the Law-giver But of this distinction more in its place 4. From the difference of the Morall Law and the other lawes 4. Because it differs from other Lawes in respect of causes of abrogation Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated in respect of the causes of abrogation There can be very good reasons given why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated which can no wayes agree to the Morall as First The Ceremoniall Law had not for its object that which is perpetuall and in it self holinesse To circumcise and to offer sacrifice these things were not in themselves holy and good nor is the leaving of them a sinne whereas the matter of the Morall Law is perpetually good and the not doing of it is necessarily a sinne I speake of that matter which Divines call morall naturall Again The Ceremoniall Law was typicall and did shadow forth Christ to come Now when he was come there was no use of these ceremonies And lastly The Jewes and the Gentiles were to consociate into one body and no difference be made between them Now to effect this it was necessary that partition-wall should be pulled down for as long as that stood they could not joyn in one LECTURE XXIII ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law yea we establish it I Shall not stand upon any more arguments to prove the perpetuall obligation of the Morall Law because this is abundantly maintained in that assertion already proved that the Morall Law as given by Moses doth still oblige us I come therefore to those places of Scripture which seeme to Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a time only answered hold forth the duration of the Morall Law for a prefixed time only even as the ceremoniall Law doth I shall select the most remarkable places and in answering of them we shall see the other fully cleared And I will begin with that Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were untill John It should therefore seeme that the Law was to continue but untill Johns time I will not here stand to dispute whether John Baptist was to be reckoned under the Old Testament or the New only take notice that we cannot make a third different estate wherein the Covenant of grace should be dispensed as an Antinomian author doth for our Saviour seemeth fully to conclude that he did belong to the Old Testament therefore he saith The least in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he * Minimum maximi est maju◠maximo minimi Although in this respect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him that he did not prophesie of a Messias to come but pointed with his hand to him who was already come And as for the text it self none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came for lest any should by that expression think so our Saviour addeth Heaven and earth shall sooner passe away then that one title should fall to the ground Therefore the meaning is that the Law in respect of the typicall part of it as it did
with divels we put heavie chaines and fetters that they may doe no hurt so the Lord laid the Law upon the people of Israel to keep them in from impietie The Apostle useth a word shut up as in a dungeon but that is to another sense It was Chrysostomes comparison As a great man suspecting his wife appoints Eunuchs to look to her and keep her so did God being jealous over the Jewes appoint these lawes 2. To curse and condemne and in this respect it poureth all 2. Because it condemnes them its fury upon the ungodly The Law to the godly by Christ is like a Serpent with a sting pulled out but now to the wicked the sting of sinne is the Law and therefore the condition of that man who is thus under it is unspeakably miserable The curse of it is the sore displeasure of God and that for every breach of it and if men that have broken onely mens lawes be yet so much afraid that they hide themselves and keep close when yet no man or Judge can damne them or throw them into hell what cause is there to feare that Law-giver who is able to destroy soule and body Therefore consider thou prophane man are not thy oaths are not thy lusts against Gods Law You had better have all the men in the world your enemy then the Law of God It 's a spirituall enemy and therefore the terrours of it are spirituall as well as the duties Let not your lives be Antinomians no more then opinions Oh that I could confute this Antinomianisme also such a mans life and conversation was against GODS Law but now it 's not 2. To Beleevers it hath this use 1. To excite and quicken them 1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption against all sinne and corruption for howsoever the Scripture saith Against such there is no law and The Law is not made to the righteous yet because none of the godly are perfectly righteous and there is none but may complaine of his dull love and his faint delight in holy things therefore the Law of God by commanding doth quicken him How short is this of that which God cōmands not that a man is to look for justification by this or to make these in stead of a Christ to him but for other ends Hence Psal 1. and Psal 19. and 119. who can deny that they belong to the godly now as well as heretofore Have not beleevers now crookednesse hypocrisie luke-warmnesse You know not onely the unruly colt that is yet untamed but the horse that is broken hath a bit and bridle also and so not onely the ungodly but even the godly whose hearts have been much broken and tamed doe yet need a bridle Nè Spiritum sessorem excutiant And if men should be so peremptorie as to say they doe not need this it 's not because they doe not need it for they need it most but because they doe not feele it 2. To enlighten and discover unto them daily more and more heart-sinne 2. It discovers sin unto them and soule-sinne This use the Apostle speaketh of Rom. 7. per totum for how should a man come to know the depth of originall sinne all the sinfull motions flowing from it but by the Law and therefore that is observed by Divines the Apostle saith he had not knowne sinne but by the Law intimating thereby that the Law of nature was so obliterated and darkened that it could not shew a man the least part of his wickednesse Seneca who had more light then others yet he saith Erras si tecum vitia nasci putas supervenerunt ingesta sunt And so Pelagius his assertion was that tam sine vitio quà m sine virtute nascimur And you see all Popery to this day holds those motions of heart not consented to to be no sins but necessary conditions arising from our constitution and such as Adam had in innocency Therefore the people of God see and are humbled for that wickednesse which others take no notice of This will satisfie man but not Gods Law 3. To drive them out of all their owne power and righteousnesse 3. It makes them disclaim all their owne righteousness And this is another good consequence for when they see all to come short of the Law that the earth is not more distant from heaven then they from that righteousnesse this makes them to goe out of all their prayers and all their duties as you see Paul Rom. 7. he consented to the Law and he delighted in it but he could not reach to the righteousnesse of it and therefore crieth out Oh wretched man that I am How apt are the holiest to be proud and secure as David and Peter even as the wormes and wasps eat the sweetest apples and fruit but this will keep thee low How absurd then are they that say The preaching of the Law is to make men trust in themselves and to adhere to their owne righteousnesse for there is no such way to see a mans beggery and guilt as by shewing the strictnesse of the Law For what makes a Papist so selfe-confident that his hope is partly in grace and partly in merits but because they hold they are able to keep the Law God forbid saith a Papist that we should enjoy heaven as of meere almes to us no we have it by conquest Whence is all this but because they give not the Law its due 4. Hereby to quicken them to an higher price and esteem of Christ 4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits and the benefits by him So Paul in that great agony of his striving with his corruption being like a living man tyed to a dead carkasse his living faith to dead unbeliefe his humility to loathsome pride see what a conclusion he makes I thank God through Jesus Christ. It 's true many times the people of God out of the sense of their sinne are driven off from Christ but this is not the Scriptures direction That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt peace in Christ for thy terrour And in this consideration it is that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law and about sinne All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel so as if the discovering of the one did quite drive from the other And this is the reason why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ taking up every crumb that falls from his table they are Christs to themselves and self-saviours I deny not but the preaching of Christ and about grace may also make us prize grace and Christ but such is our corruption that all is little enough Let me adde these cautions 1. It 's of great consequence in what sense we use the word Law 1. The Law according to the use of the word in the Scripture is not onely a
make from this doctrine If Christs righteousnesse be ours then there is no sin in us seen by God then we are as righteous as Christ argueth the Antinomian and this absurdity the Papists would put on us 8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties For 8 Keeps a man slavish in all his duties how must that man be needs tossed up and downe which hath no other ground of peace then the works of grace How is the humble heart soon made proud how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly Now you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and feares and James 1. it is made the canker-worme that devoureth all our duties Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that doe oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons as Be not afraid but beleeve so Why doubted ye the word signifieth to be in bivio that a man cannot tell which waies to take to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up and downe as meteors in the aire Now how can a man be bold by any thing that is his By faith we have confidence and boldnesse faith is confidence and faith works confidence but faith whose object is Christ not any thing of ours it 's made the first word also we can speak when we are made sons to cry Abba Father 9. A man may as lawfully joyne Saints or Angels in his mediation 9. Joynes a mans owne graces to Christs mediation with Christ as graces Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious but because it joyneth Christ and others together in that great work Dost not thou the like when thou joynest thy love and grace with Christs obedience The Papist saith Let such and such an holy Saint save me and thou sayest Let my holy love let my holy repentance save me What advantage then hast thou if thou criest downe Saints and then makest thy selfe one in a Popish way Could therefore thy graces speak they would say as the Angell to John that would worship him Worship thou God worship thou Christ put thy trust in Christ he hath onely borne our sins so as to take them away and therefore as grosse Idolatry makes the works of God a god so doth more subtle Idolatry make the workes of Christ a Christ 10. It overthroweth the grace of hope When faith is destroyed 10. Overthrowes hope then also hope is This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian now if it be placed in Christ and the promises it is as firme as faith therefore saith the Apostle of hope Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed but if it were an hope in our selves how often should wee be confounded That is good of Austine Noli sperare de te sed de Deo tuo nam si speras de te anima tua conturbatur ad te quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te It 's an ignorant distinction among Papists that they may have a certainty of hope but not of faith in matters of salvation whereas they have both the like certainty and differ onely thus faith doth for the present receive the things promised and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties till it come to enjoy them Now to have such an hope as the Papists define partim è gratia Dei and partim à meritis nostris proveniens must needs be destructive 11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification 11. Robs God of his glory If you have not meat or drink but by God shall you have pardon of sin without him Abraham beleeved and gave God glory We are apt to account beleeving no glory to God but could wee mortifie our corruptions more and more could wee exhaust and spend our selves yet this is no more to give glory to God then when we beleeve Now it is good to possesse Christians with this principle To beleeve in Christ is to give glory to Christ we naturally would think to go far on pilgrimages to macerate our bodies were likelier waies for our salvation but this would be mans glory more then Gods glory Therefore how did that wretched Monk dying blasphemously say Redde mihi aternam vitam quam debes 12. It maketh sin and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation 12. Makes more in sin to damne then in Christ to save then Christ for salvation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. makes the opposition and sheweth that the gift is far above the transgression Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them there is not more in them to damne then in Christ to save Why should sin be an heavie sin a great sin and Christ not also a wonderfull saving Christ When we say The guilt of sin is infinite that is only infinite objectivè but now Christs merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them and therefore as sin is exceeding sinfull so let Christ be an exceeding Christ and grace exceeding grace 13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification which declareth 13. Overthrowes the doctrine of sanctification it to be inchoate and imperfect that our faith hath much unbeliefe in it our best gold much drosse our wine much water It is true both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this errour that because sin is covered therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinckle but they doe it upon different grounds whereas Paul Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying who are to pray thus Conjunge Domine obsequium meum cum omnibus qua Christus passus est pro me And how absurd is that doctrine Si bona opera sunt magis bona quà m mala opera mala fortiùs merentur vitam aternam 14. It taketh away the true doctrine of the Law as if that were 14. Takes away the doctrine of the Law possible to be kept For works could not justifie us unlesse they were answerable to that righteousnesse which God commands but Rom. 3. that which was impossible for the Law Christ hath fulfilled in us 15. It overthroweth the consideration of a man while he is justified 15. Overthroweth the consideration of man while he is justified For they look upon him as godly but the Scripture as ungodly Rom. 4. who justifieth the ungodly Some by ungodly meane any prophane man whereas it is rather one that is not perfectly godly for Abraham is here made the ungodly person I know it is explained otherwise but certainly this is most genuine Use 1. Of Instruction How uncharitably and falsly many men charge it generally upon our godly Ministers that they are nothing but Justitiaries and Legall Preachers For do not all sound and godly Ministers hold forth this Christ this righteousnesse
of our Saviour in a sense which some explaine it in I come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance By repentance they meane conversion and by the righteous not Pharisees but such as are already converted Now that these interpretations much agreeing in one may the better be assented to consider some parallel places of Scripture Galat. 5. 23. speaking of the fruits of the spirit Against such there is no law The Law was not made to these to condemne them or accuse them so that what is said of the actions and graces of the godly may be applyed to the godly themselves You may take another parallel Rom. 13. 3. Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evill Wouldst thou not be afraid of them doe no evill And thus the Apostle to shew how the grace of love was wrought in the Thessalonians hearts I need not saith he write to you to love for you have been taught of God to doe this His very saying I need not write was a writing so that these expressions doe hold forth no more then that the godly so farre as they are regenerate doe delight in the Law of God and it is not a terrour to them And if because the godly have an ingenuous free spirit to doe what is good he need not the Law directing or regulating it would follow as well he needed not the whole Scripture he needed not the Gospel that calls upon him to beleeve because faith is implanted in his heart This rock cannot be avoided And therefore upon this ground because the godly are made holy in themselves the Swencfeldians did deny the whole Scripture to be needfull to a man that hath the Spirit And that which the Antinomian doth limit to the Law It is a killing letter they apply to the whole Scripture and I cannot see how they can escape this argument Hence Chrysostome that spake so hyperbolically about the Law speaks as high about the Scriptures themselves We ought to have the word of God engraven in our hearts so that there should be no need of Scripture And Austin speakes of some that had attained to such holinesse that they lived without a Bible Now who doth not see what a damnable and dangerous position this would be That the Law must needs have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man will appeare in these two particulars 1. We cannot discerne the true worship of God from superstition 1. The true worship of God cannot be discerned from false but by the Law and idolatry but by the first and second Commandement It is true many places in Scripture speak against false worship but to know when it is a false worship the second Commandement is a speciall director How do the orthodox Writers prove Images unlawfull how doe they prove that the setting up any part or meanes of worship which the Lord hath not commanded is unlawfull but by the second Commandement And certainly the want of exact knowledge in the latitude of this Commandement brought in all idolatry and superstition And we shall shew you God willing in time that the Decalogue is not onely Moses his ten Commandements but it 's Christs ten Commandements and the Apostles ten Commandements as well as his 2. Another instance at this time is in comparing the depth of 2. The depth of sin cannot be discovered without it the Law and the depth of our sinne together There is a great deale more spirituall excellency and holinesse commanded in the Law of God the Decalogue then we can reach unto Therefore we are to study into it more and more Open mine eyes that I may understand the wonderfull things of thy Law thus David prayeth though godly and his eyes were in a great measure opened by the Spirit of God And as there is a depth in the Law so a depth in our originall and native sinne There is a great deale more flith in us then we can or doe discover Psal 19. Who can understand his errours Cleanse me from secret sins Therefore there being such a world of filth in thy carnall heart what need is there of the spirituall and holy Law to make thee see thy selfe thus polluted and abominable Certainly a godly man groweth partly by discovering that pride that deadnesse that filth in his soule he never thought of or was acquainted with The practicall use that is to be made of this Scripture explained is to pray and labour for such a free heavenly heart that the Law of God and all the precepts of it may not be a terrour to you but sweetnesse and delight Oh how I love thy Law cryeth David he could not expresse it And againe My soule breaketh in the longing after thy judgements In another place he and Job doe account of them above their necessary food you do not hale and drag an hungry or thirsty man to his bread and water I doe not speak this but that it 's lawfull to eye the reward as Moses and Christ did yea and to fear God for who can think that the Scripture using these motives would stirre up in us sinfull and unlawfull affections but yet such ought to be the filiall and son-like affections to God and his will that we ought to love and delight in his Commandements because they are his as the poore son loveth his father though he hath no lordship or rich inheritance to give him There is this difference between a free and violent motion a free motion is that which is done for its owne selfe sake a violent is that which cometh from an outward principle the patient helping it not forward at all Let not to pray to beleeve to love God be violent motions in you Where faith worketh by love this maketh all duties rellish this overcometh all difficulties The Lacedemonians when they went to war did sacrifice to Love because love only could make hardship and wounds and death it selfe easie Doe thou therefore pray that the love of God may be shed abroad in thine heart and consider these two things 1. How the Law laid upon Christ to dye and suffer for thee was not a burthen or terrour to him How doth he witnesse this by crying out With desire I have desired to drink of this cup Think with thy self If Christ had been as unwilling to dye for me as I to pray to him to be patient to be holy what had become of my soule If Christ therefore said of that Law to be a Mediatour for thee Lo I come to doe thy will O God thy Law is within mine heart how much rather ought this to be true of thee in any thing thou shalt doe for him Thou hast not so much to part with for him as he for thee What is thy life and wealth to the glory of his Godhead which was laid aside for a while And then secondly consider how that men love lusts for lusts sake they love the world because of the
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
be manifested to be obedience For as Austin speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austin doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbeliefe were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor August if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who art thou O man c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall Adam had power to stand Therefore the proper essentiall end of this commandement was to exercise Adams obedience Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousnesse in God Bellarmine doth confesse that God may doe that which if man should doe he sinned as for instance Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would doe it if it lay in his power but God is not so tyed both because he hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free he might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if he should hinder all evill things there would many good things be wanting to the world for there is nothing which some doe not abuse The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held that God had a serious will of saving all men but not an efficacious will of saving all Thus differing from the Arminians on one side and from some Protestant Authours on the other side and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious is this of Gods to Adam seriously willing him to stand and withall giving him ability to stand yet it was not such an efficacious will as de facto did make him stand for no question God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven But concerning the truth of this their assertion we are to enquire in its time For that errour much spreads and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid that Christ intentionally died and so offereth his grace to all But for the matter in hand if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency yea and efficiency in some sense no question but God did seriously will his standing when he gave that commandement And howsoever Adam did fall because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him whereby he was inabled to obey God To deny Adam that help which should indeed make him stand was no necessary requisite at all on Gods part But secondly that of Austins is good God would not have suffered sin to be if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill not that God needed sin to shew his glory for he needed no glory from the creature but it pleased him to permit sin that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations we will say as Austin to the Hereticks Illi garriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity we must conclude that this positive command was universall and that Adam is here taken collectively for although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given yet it was not personall but to Adam as an head or common person Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him for whether it be in him or in as much as all have sinned it cometh to the same purpose for how could all be said to have sinned but because they were in him And this is also further to be proved by the commination In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby Besides the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law besides the naturall for Adam doe also inferre for Adams posterity It is true some Divines that doe hold a positive law would have been yet seem to be afraid to affirme fully that the posterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very same commandement of eating the forbidden fruit but I see no cause of questioning it Now all this will be further cleared when we come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sin unto his posterity And indeed if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing there could be no more reason why Adams sin should be made ours
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
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
the Law though Law there be used for the whole Ministery of Moses and not of the Morall Law let us consider in what sense this is denyed to the godly 5. That interpretation of some though of solid judgement The commonly received sense of that Phrase Not to be under the Law rejected who make the phrase Not to be under the Law to be as much as Not under the curse of the Law or Not obnoxious to the guilt by it seemeth not to agree with the context I know this is generally received as the sense of the place and there is this argument urged for it because the Apostle maketh an objection from hence Shall we sinne because we are not under the Law but under grace Therefore it should seeme that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it and grace for pardoning and free justification but because the Apostle is here speaking of sanctification both in this Chapter and the Chapter following I preferre Beza's interpretation which makes the being under the Beza's interpretation of the phrase approv'd Law to be the same in sense with under sinne for the Apostle speaking of himselfe as carnall Chap. 7. saith that the Law wrought in him all manner of evil and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man so that the more the Law is applyed to him the more doth his corruption break forth Now then this is the Apostles argument Let not sinne reigne in you for now you are not under the Law stirring up sinne and provoking it in you but under grace not justifying or pardoning as properly and immediately meant here though they were under that also but sanctifying and healing And the Apostle maketh the objection following What then shall we sinne because we are not under the Law because the phrase was ambiguous and might be thought to have such a sense as the Libertines make it to have to wit to doe every thing as we please without any controule by any Law and in this explication we shall see a sweet harmony in the context The third instance is Rom. 7. especially in the beginning of the Chapter but the answer to the former Objection will also cleare this because the Apostle continueth in the same matter explaining what it is to be under the Law by a similitude from a wife married to an husband who is bound to him so long as he liveth but when he dyeth she is free Now in the reddition of the similitude there is some difference among Commentators but I take it thus Sinne which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions that is the former husband the soule had and lusts they are the children hereof but when we are regenerated then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soule so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband but sinne is properly the husband And if you will say the Morall Law you must understand it in this sense only as it doth inflame the heart to all evil therefore the Apostle as is well observed by the Learned doth not say the Law is dead but we are dead for indeed the Law is never so much alive as in the godly who doe constantly obey it and live accordingly to it This will also serve for that place Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the spirit ye are not under the Law That is under the Law forcibly compelling Austin distinguisheth of foure states of men those who are Ante legens and these commit sinne without knowledge of it Sub lege and these commit it with some fighting but are overcome Sub gratia and these doe fight and shall overcome and Sub pace these we may make to be those in heaven LECTURE XXIIII DEUT. 4. 13. And he declared unto you his Covenant which he commanded you to performe even ten Commandements c. I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule and now come to consider of it as a Covenant that so the whole Law may be fully understood I shall not be long upon this though the matter be large and difficult though the subject be like the Land of Canaan yet there are many Gyants and great Objections in the way I will rather handle it positively then controversally for I doe not finde in any point of Divinity learned men so confused and perplexed being like Abrahams Ram hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head as here That I may methodically proceed observe the context of this verse and the scope Moses being to perswade the people of Israel to obedience Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law of the Law useth severall forcible arguments As ver 1. The good and profitable issue thereof which is to live and possesse the land not as if this mercy were only temporall but by this was represented eternall life in heaven A second argument is from the perfection of it that nothing may be added to it or detracted from it The third argument is from the great wisdome and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations there being no people under the sunne that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had and if that be true of Bernard Sapiens est cui res sapiunt prout sunt hee is a wise man to whom things doe tast and relish as they are divine and holy things as holy earthy things as earthly and fading then certainly by this Law of God there was true wisedome prescribed Other arguments Moses doth bring as The great authority God put upon the Law The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law from the manner of delivering it Which Law hee declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant Now this take notice of that the word Covenant to omit other significations is taken sometimes synecdochically for part of the Covenant as it is here in these words The Doctrine I will insist upon is That the Law was delivered That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant appears by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant-way Or The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant and the reall properties of a Covenant 1. The name of a Covenant 2 King 18. 12. Because they obeyed 1. In that it hath the name of a Covenant not the voice of the Lord their God but transgressed his Covenant and all that Moses the servant of God commanded Deut. 17. 2. If there be found any that hath worught wickednesse in transgressing the Covenant which was the ten Commandements as appeareth ver 3. And more expresly 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord that he made with the children
eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge that his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seeme plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spirituall held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists 2. Of Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Lawes under the New Testament New Testament hath added more perfect Lawes and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not onely command to pray but gave a prescript forme of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they goe on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of workes and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse error whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when wee speak of the Law and Gospel strictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immediatly to heaven Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediately to heaven therefore say they wee doe not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New find such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith hee saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which hee brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sinne and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places hee brings Jer. 50. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sinne not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jewes which God would bring backe from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel onely for had not the godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sinnes viz Christs bloud as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sinne in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full growne heires What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see lesse sinne in their children while young then when growne up and their childishnes doth more excuse them And although children onely have a rod for their faults yet men growne up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therefore he seeth sinne in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest worke of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master that so they may be prepared for Christ and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel that their lives should be fuller of wisedome and grown graces then the Jewes because they are not under a School-master as children As if one should say to a young man that is taken from the Grammar-schoole and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for hee is not in
a Grammar-schoole now but in an University Thus you see the chiefe notion of a School-master is to prepare and guide his correcting is accidentall yea if wee may beleeve Quintilian a master in this kind he is against the School-masters beating of boyes as that which would make them of a servile disposition But Solomon giveth better rules Grant therefore that this is to be understood of knockes and blowes which they had what can we say under the Gospel that wee are children freed from the rod though wee have not a School-master yet wee have a father to correct us Heb. 12. 5 6 7 8. Doe we not in that place find a plaine contradiction of this doctrine For the Apostle doth there alledge a place of the Old Testament to us now under the Gospel And certainly afflictions are as necessary to the godly now as fire to the drossy vessell and filing to the rusty iron As the scourging and beating of the garment with a sticke beateth out the mothes and the dust so doe troubles and adversities corruptions from the children of God The fourth reason why God saw sin in them was Because they were not made perfect according to the conscience Hebr. 9. 13 14. Who would not think that the Authour were some Papist or Socinian for if the Text prove any thing to his purpose it will evince that the godly then were made partakers of no more then a legall bodily cleansing But as for the place that is miserably arrested for the Apostle his intent is to shew that the godly then could not obtaine righteousnesse by any of those sacrifices and therefore the good they enjoyed was from Christ the true sacrifice so that unlesse he will deny Christs bloud to be effectuall and operative in the Old Testament this reason must fall to the ground Other reasons hee brings which are to the same purpose and therefore may easily be overthrowne as That God saw no sin in them because their Preachers did not open the kingdome of heaven but hee seeth none in us because the least of our Ministers doe bring us into this kingdome Every one may see the weaknesse here for it supposeth that God did not so fully pardon and forgive because the doctrine of these things was not so clearly preached If the Authours arguments had been that Christ dyed not so fully for them or that Christ his righteousnesse was not so fully imputed unto them then there had been some probability Thus you see this false difference also I do not medle with that opinion Of seeing sin in the beleevers because it is not the proper place I find other differences between the Law and the Gospel made by another Antinomian and they are in a Sermon upon the two Covenants of grace where the Author having truely asserted that God did transact with the Jewes in a Covenant of grace yet hee makes that Covenant and this under the Gospel 2. That the Covenant God made with the Jews and this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants to be two distinct Covenants They are not saith hee pag. 45. one and the same Covenant diversly administred but they are two distinct Covenants His arguments are because they are called Old and New But those names inforce no essentiall difference The Commandement of love is called an old Commandement and a new yet it is the same for essence so likewise the termes of a good and better doe imply no more then a graduall difference in their excellency But that which I shall especially animadvert upon is the differences hee giveth between these two Covenants of grace so really distinguished as hee supposeth and in this matter the Authour speaketh much error in a few lines The first difference assigned by him is in respect of remission 3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel not so under the Law because no sacrifice save for sins of ignorance of sinnes but he goeth on other grounds then the Hony-combe doth They had not saith he a plenary remission of all sorts of sinnes There were sacrifices for sinnes of ignorance but not for other sinnes that were done presumptuously and if no sacrifices were admitted then consequently no pardon obtained but under the Gospel Christs bloud cleanseth from all sin pag. 54. Now here is an heape of falshoods First that all the legall sacrifices were only for sinnes of meer Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance ignorance This is also an errour among Sociniaus but Levit. 6. 2 3. there is a sacrifice appointed for him that shall lye and sweare falsly in detaining of his neighbours goods and this could not be but a sinne of knowledge This is also abundantly confirmed in Levit. 16. where the feast of expiation and atonement is made for all the sinnes of the people ver 16. He shall make an atonement because of the uncleannesse of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sinnes So ver 21. He shall confesse over the live goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sinnes Thus ver 30. That ye may be cleane from all your sinnes before the Lord and ver 34. This shall be an atonement for the children of Israel once a yeare for all their sinnes Thus you see the Scripture speakes plainly for all their sinnes yet the Antinomian speakes as boldly as if nothing were truer that there were sacrifices for some sorts of sinnes only So that you are wisely to judge of such books and not beleeve every confident expression It 's true the Apostle calls these sinnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 9. 7. we translate it errours for the Apostle doth not meane sinnes committed out of meere ignorance but all kinde of sinnes as appeareth by Levit. 16. but therefore are all sinnes called so because omnis malus ignorat There being no sinne which doth not proceede from some errour in the practicall judgement for although a man sin wilfully and advisedly so that there is Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia as Austin speakes of some of his sinnes yet there is even then an errour in that mans conscience But in the second place grant that there were no legall sacrifices 2. No legall sacrifice therefore no remission of sin inconsequent appointed for some sinnes as indeed particular sacrifices were commonly for sinnes either of ignorance or if wilfull not of such an high and morall guilt particular I say for that feast of expiation was generall yet there is no consequence in the world that therefore there was no pardon to be sued out How foolish then were David and Manasses in suing out pardon for their bloud-guiltinesse if there were no such thing allowed by God How grosse is this errour If this doctrine were true then most of those that are reckoned as godly in the Old Testament could have no pardon because many of them did fall into such
grosse sinnes for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sinne 3. The sinne against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said The bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sinne Now if the Jewes would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sinne they could not have done it I reply What if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himselfe to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sinne Why doth he Isai 1. call upon Jerusalem to repent of her whoredomes murders saying If their sinnes were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole boxe of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs bloud cleansing from all sinne I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he meane it universally They were to confesse their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himself Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezek. 16. where God speakes to the Church that while she was in her bloud he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speakes there of the Church of the Jewes as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isai 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Jewes before God called them Did the Jewes first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sinnes then all those arguments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our own righteousnesse c. It seemeth the Jewes under the Old Testament might doe all these things without blame A Jew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will doe something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we are enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Jewes Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here medle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their 5. That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by its own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unlesse the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs bloud at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himself from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it onely is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I aske whether God did not justifie David and the godly in those dayes from all eternity as they speake and if hee did why should not all their sinnes be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sinnes pardoned in the like manner In the meane while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sinnes done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the Old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as wee God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours If God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say Wee may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foule upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and hee must necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a
is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which hee brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Law and the Prophets which hee must have said if his opinion were true but of the Scribes and Pharisees who had corrupted the text with their false glosses I will not consider his other reasons for they are so weak that he seemeth to be afraid of them And certainly it would be strange Divinity to say that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart and not have sinned but now it would be sin in a Christian The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel then under the Law Hence the Scripture speakes as if they had under the Old Testament none at all meerly because there was not such a plentifull effusion of his Spirit upon them not but that if wee consider some particular persons they might have such degrees of grace that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them as Abraham and David but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then So that as one starre differeth from another in glory thus did the Church of the Jewes from that of Christians They had drops but we have the fountaine they had glimmerings but wee have the sun it selfe Now as these are priviledges so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge and holinesse then was in those dayes But all that the Prophets reproved in their people ignorance self-confidence resting upon externall duties c. the same may we in our hearers 3. Their condition was more servile All things did presse The Jews under the Law were in a more servile condition then Christians under the Gospel more to fear and bondage then now among us Hence the Apostle Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bond-woman Hence Austine makes Timor and Amor the difference of the two Testaments God met man sinning in the Law as he did Adam with terrour charging sin upon him but under the Gospel as the father did the prodigall son coming home to him See Hebr. 12. this difference considered by Paul Yee are not come to Mount Sinai c. Onely you must rightly understand this The Jewes had a two-fold consideration one as being servile and another of them as sonnes but under age so that they were not wholly excluded from the spirit of Adoption yea the Apostle saith That the Promises and Adoption did belong unto them and David doth appropriate God unto himselfe as his God in his prayer which argued hee had the Spirit of Adoption inabling him to call Abba Father Now as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage so they were under an outward bondage also opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speakes of whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them In the asserting of this difference one scruple is to be removed which is this How could the Jewes be said to be in more servitude then the Christians meerly because of those ceremonies and sacrifices for seeing they were commanded by God and had spirituall significations they did thereby become helpes unto their faith and were exercises of their piety As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden and tend to bondage because they are visible signes But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us for as Chrysostome observeth if wee had been incorporeall God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments no more then hee doth to Angels but now consisting of soul and body he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to help us and to promote our faith But this may be answered that although they were spirituall in signification yet they being many and requiring much bodily labour they could not be observed without much difficulty and therefore no Priest or Levite that was spiritually minded in those dayes but would rather choose to exercise the ministery under the Gospel then to busie himself in the killing of beasts and fleaing of them which was their duty to doe Therefore well did Austine observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments fewer in number easier in observation and more cleare in signification Againe those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children and were more convenient to that low condition then unto the full age of the Church and Sacraments though they be an help yet they suppose some imbecillity in the subject therefore in heaven there shall be none at all Onely take notice that Popery having introduced so many ceremonious observations and such a multitude of Church-precepts hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of noneage againe This also discovereth that such are not spirituall that delight in ceremoniall waies and the more men fixe their heart upon sensible observations the lesse they partake of spirituall I will instance but in a fourth because these differences are The continuation of the Law was last but till the coming of Christ given by most that treate on this subject and that shall be the continuance and abode of it The Law in that Mosaicall administration was to indure but till Christ the fulnesse came and then as the scaffolds are pulled downe when the house is built so were all those externall ordinances to be abolished when Christ himselfe came A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth A School-master is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge Milke is not comely for those who live on solide meat The chaffe preserves the corne but when the corne is gathered the chaffe is thrown away And when the fruit cometh the flower falleth to the ground And in this sense the Apostle Heb. 7. doth argue against it saying it could bring nothing to perfection Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited which would work all those spirituall mercies for us Hence had there been no farther proceeding but wee must alwaies have stayed in such offerings and sacrifices it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us It is therefore in this respect that it was to be antiquated and a better covenant to come in the roome of it The Apostle calleth those things Heb. 10. a shadow Now a shadow that doth shew a man but yet the shadow that doth not live or eate or speake so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ but yet they could not exhibite the
the Law it cometh from the spirit of Christ The second excellency is in regard of continuance and duration The 2. Because of its duration it being to abide alwaies but the ministery of Moses to be abolished ministery of Moses was to be made void and abolished which is to be understood of that Jewish pedagogy not of every part of it for the Morall as given by Moses doth still oblige us Christians as hath been already proved but the ministery of the Gospel is to abide alwaies that is there is no new ministery to succeed that of the Gospel although in heaven all shall cease The third difference is in regard of glory God caused some materiall 3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spirituall that which shone upon Moses but materiall glory to shine upon Moses while he gave the Law hereby to procure the greater authority and majesty to the Law but that glory which cometh by the Gospel is spirituall and farre more transcendent bringing us at last into eternall glory So that the former glory seemeth to be nothing in comparison of this Even as the light of a candle or torch seemeth to be nothing saith Theophylact when the light of the Sun ariseth Now the Apostle handling these things doth occasionally open an allegory which had not Paul by the Spirit of God found out we neither could or ought to have done it And the consideration of that will serve much for my present matter I know divers men have divers thoughts about exposition of this place so that there seemeth to be a veile upon the Text as well as upon Moses his face But I shall plainly understand it thus Moses his face What signified by the shining of Moses his face shining when he was with God and coming from him doth signifie the glory and excellency of the Law as in respect of Gods counsells and intentions for although the Law did seem to hold out nothing but temporall mercies devoid of Christ and heaven yet as in respect of Gods intention it was farre otherwise Now saith the Apostle The Jewes were not able to fixe their eyes upon this glory that is the carnall Israelites did not behold Christ in the ministery of Moses because a veile is upon their hearts The Apostle makes the veile upon Moses to be a type of the blindnesse and hardnesse of heart in the Israelite so that as the veile upon Moses covered the glory of his face so the veile of blindnesse and stupidity upon the heart of the Jewes doth hinder them from the glory of the Law which was Christ And that this is so doth appeare viz. where the Israelite is denied to look stedfastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in my Text to the end of that ministery which was to be abolished and that end was Christ so that this Text doth fully prove my intent which is that Christ was in some measure a glorious object in the administration of the Law but the veile upon the Israelites heart hindered the sight of it Now saith Paul when it shall turne as we translate or rather when they shall turn for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observed to be used alwaies of persons and though the word be in the singular number in the originall yet according to the custome of Scripture it may be understood plurally because he speaks of a collective body When saith the Text this turning shall be the veile shall be taken away or rather as Camero well observeth in the present tense It is taken away for you cannot conceive that the Jewes shall be first turned unto God and the veile afterwards to be taken away but they both are together I will give another instance that Christ was the end of intention or aime in the dispensation of the Law from Galat. 3. 23 24. We were kept under the Law till Faith came Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ In which words not the Morall Law simply taken but the whole dispensation of the Jewes is compared to the instruction of a School-master Now as a School-master doth not only beat or correct but teach also and direct Thus the Law did not only severely curb and keep from sin but did also teach Christ Hence we are said to be kept under the Law which although some make an expression from the strict keeping and watching which souldiers in a garrison use to make yet a learned man makes it to denote the duty of a School-master as one who is to give an account of such committed to his charge In which sense Cain said Am I my brothers keeper The Law then as a School-master did not only threaten and curse or like the Egyptian task-masters beat and strike because the work was not done but did shew where power and help was to be had viz. from Christ only In the second place Christ is the end of perfection to the Law for 2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law the end of the Law being to justifie and to bring to eternall life this could not be attained by our owne power and industry not by any defect of the Law but by reason of our infirmity Therefore Christ he hath brought about this intent of the Law that we should be justified and have life If the end of humane lawes be to make good and honest men much rather is the end of the Morall Law appointed by God himselfe But the Law is so far from making us good as that it worketh in us all evill which effect of the Law in himselfe the Apostle acknowledgeth so that as good food and nourishment received by a diseased stomack doth increase the disease more according to that rule Corpora impura quantò magis nutrias deteriora reddis thus it is in every man by nature The Law which is for holinesse and life becometh to cause sinne and death Christ therefore that the Law may have its end he taketh our nature upon him that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that the meere 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in vouchsafing as his Spirit that we may obey it knowledge of the Law with the externall obedience onely to it was not available to any benefit Therefore Christ vouchsafeth his holy Spirit unto us regenerating of us whereby we come in part to obey the Law of God So that the people of God have a righteousnesse or holinesse of works but it is imperfect and so not inabling us to justification and in this sense it is that the people of God are said to keep Gods commandements So then whereas our condition was so by sin that we were neither able nor willing to obey the Law of God in the least degree Christ doth give us grace and cureth us so far that we are said to walk in his Law Now herein
this person doe thus the hatefullnesse thereof is laid upon Christ Is not this such a doctrine that must needes please an ungodly heart 3. In the denying of gaining any thing by them even any peace of 3. They deny any gaine or losse to come by them heart or losing it by them Now this goeth contrary to Scripture Thus page 139. the Antinomian saith The businesse we are to doe is this that though there be sinnes committed yet there is no peace broken because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ there is a reparation of the damage before the damage it selfe be committed And againe page 241. If God come to reckon with beleevers for sinne either he must aske something of them or not If not why are they troubled If so then God cannot bring a new reckoning And in other places If a man look to get any thing by his graces hee will have nothing but knocks To answer these it is true if a man should look by any repentance or grace to have heaven and pardon as a cause or merit this were to be ignorant of the imperfection of all our graces and the glorious greatnesse of those mercies What proportion hath our faith or godly sorrow with the everlasting favour and good pleasure of God But first the Scripture useth severe and sharp threatnings even unto the godly where they neglect to repent or goe on in sin Rom. 8. 13. If yee live after the flesh you shall die especially consider that place Hebr. 12. two last verses the Apostle alludeth to that place Deut. 4. and he saith Our God as well as the God of the Jewes who appeared in terrour is a consuming fire Now then if the Scripture threatens thus to men living in sin if they doe not they may finde comfort 2 dly Our holy duties they have a promise of pardon and eternall life though not because of their worth yet to their presence and therefore may the godly rejoyce when they finde them in themselves Lastly their ground is still upon that false bottome Because our sins are laid upon Christ What then they may be laid upon us in other respects to heale us to know how bitter a thing it is to sinne against God God doth here as Joseph with his brethren he caused them to be bound and to be put in goales as if now they were to smart for their former impiety 4. They deny them to be signes of grace 4. In denying them to be signes and testimonies of grace or Christ dwelling in us And here indeed one would wonder to see how laborious an Author is to prove that no inherent graces can be signes and he selects three instances Of universality of obedience Of sincerity and love to the brethren concluding that there are two evidences onely one revealing which is the Spirit of God immediatly the other receiving and that is faith Now in answering of this wee may shew briefly how many weak props this discourse leaneth upon 1. In confounding the instrumentall evidencing with the efficient Not holy works say they but the Spirit Here he doth oppose subordinates Subordinata non sunt opponenda sed componenda As if a man should say We see not by the beames or reflection of the Sun but the Sun Certainly every man is in darknesse and like Hagar seeth not a fountaine though neare her till her eyes be opened Thus it is in grace 2. We say that a Christian in time of darknesse and temptation is not to goe by signes and markes but obedientially to trust in God as David calls upon his soul often and the word is emphaticall signifying such a relying or holding as a man doth that is falling down into a pit irrecoverably 3. His Arguments against sincerity and universality of obedience goe upon two false grounds 1. That a man cannot distinguish himselfe from hypocrites which is contrary to the Scriptures exhortation 2. That there can be no assurance but upon a full and compleat work of godlinesse All which are popish arguments 4. All those arguments will hold as strongly against faith for Are there not many beleevers for a season Is there not a faith that indureth but for a while May not then a man as soone know the sincerity of his heart as the truth of his faith Now let us consider their grounds for this strange assertion 1. Because Roman 4. it is said that God justifieth the ungodly How God may be said to justifie the ungodly Now this hath a two-fold answer 1. That which our Divines doe commonly give that these words are not to be understood in sensu composito but diviso and antecedenter he that was ungodly is being justified made godly also though that godlinesse doe not justifie him Therefore they compare these passages with those of making the blind to see and deafe to heare not that they did see while they were blind but those that were blind doe now see and this is true and good But I shall secondly answer it with some learned men that ungodly there is meant of such who are so in their nature considered having not an absolute righteousnesse yet at the same time beleevers even as Abraham was and faith of the ungodly man is accounted to him for righteousnesse So then the subject of justification is a sinner yet a beleever Now it 's impossible that a man should be a beleever and his heart not purified Acts 15. for whole Christ is the object of his faith who is received not onely to justifie but to sanctifie Hence Rom. 8. where the Apostle seemeth to make an exact order he begins with Prescience that is approbative and complacentiall not in a Popish or Arminian sense then Predestination then Calling then Justification then Glorification I will not trouble you with the dispute in which place Sanctification is meant Now the Antinomian he goeth upon that as true which the Papist would calumniate us with That a profane ungodly man if beleeving shall be justified We say this proposition supposeth an impossibility that faith in Christ or closing with him can stand with those sins because faith purifieth the heart By faith Christ dwells in our hearts Ephes 3. Therefore those expressions of the Antinomians are very dangerous and unfound and doe indeed confirme the Papists calumnies Another place they much stand upon is Rom. 5. Christ dyed for us while we were enemies while we were sinners But 1. if Christ dyed for us while we were enemies why doe they say That if a man be as great an enemy as enmity it selfe can make a man if he be willing to take Christ and to close with Christ he shall be pardoned which we say is a contradiction For how can an enemy to Christ close with Christ So that this would prove more then in some places they would seem to allow Besides Christ dyed not onely to justifie but save us now will they hence therefore inferre that profane men living
no sin in beleevers This is a dangerous position and although they have Similies to illustrate and distinctions to qualifie it yet when I speak of imputed righteousnesse there will be the proper place to shew the dangerous falshood of them 3. You must in the discourse you shall heare concerning the necessity of good works carefully distinguish between these two Propositions Good workes are necessary to beleevers to justified persons or to those that shall be saved and this Good workes are necessary to justification and salvation Howsoever this later is true in some sense yet because the words carry as if holinesse had some effect immediately upon our justification and salvation therefore I do wholly assent to those learned men that think in these two cases we should not use such a Proposition 1. When we deale with adversaries especially Papists in disputation for then we ought to speak exactly Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary lest they should seem to yeeld to Nestorius who denied her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people for what common hearer is there that upon such a speech doth not conceive that they are so necessary as that they immediately work our justification The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified the other as conditions effecting justification 4. These good works ought to be done or are necessary upon Good works are necessary these grounds 1. They are the fruit and end of Christs death Titus 1. Because they are the fruit of Christs death 2. 14. It 's a full place The Apostle there sheweth that the whole fruit and benefit of Christs redemption is lost by those that live not holily There are two things in our sins 1. The guilt and that Christ doth redeem us from 2. The filth and that he doth purifie from If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts hee will purifie thee from the noisomenesse of them And mark a two-fold end of this purification that we may be a peculiar people This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome saith he sought for among humane authours and could not find it therefore some think the Seventy feigned this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It answers to the Hebrew word Begullah and signifieth that which is precious and excellent got also with much labour so that this holinesse this repentance of thine it cost Christ deare And the other effect is zealous of good workes The Greek Fathers observe the Apostle doth not say followers but zealous that doth imply great alacrity and affection And lest men should think we should onely preach of Christ and grace These things speake saith he and exhort And Calvine thinketh the last words Let no man despise thee spoken to the people they are for the most part of delicate eares and cannot abide plaine words of mortification 2. There is some kind of analogicall relation between them and 2. Because in respect of evill workes there is some Analogy between heaven and them heaven comparatively with evill works So those places where it 's said If wee confesse our sins he is not onely faithfull but also just to forgive us our iniquities So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crowne of righteousnesse which the righteous Judge c. These words doe not imply any condignity or efficiency in the good things wee doe but an ordinability of them to eternall life so that evill and wicked workes they cannot be ordained to everlasting life but these may Hence some Divines say That though godlinesse be not meritorious nor causall of salvation yet it may be a motive as they instance If a King should give great preferment to one that should salute him in a morning this salutation were neither meritorious nor causall of that preferment but a meer motive arising from the good pleasure of the King And thus much they thinke that particle for I was an hungry doth imply So that God having appointed holinesse the way and salvation the end hence there ariseth a relation between one and the other 3. There is a promise made to them 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godlinesse hath 3. Because a promise is made unto them the promises as it s in the Originall because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God so that to every godly action thou doest there is a promise of eternall life And hereby though God be not a debtor to thee yet he is to himselfe and to his owne faithfullnesse Reddis debita nulli debens cryed Austine so that the godly may say Oh Lord it was free for thee before thou hadst promised whether thou wouldst give me heaven or no but now the word is out of thy mouth not but that wee deserve the contrary onely the Lord is faithfull therefore saith David I will mention thy righteousnesse i. e. faithfulnesse onely and then marke what the Apostle saith of this speech This is a faithfull saying and worthy of all acceptation This made them labour and suffer shame If you aske How then is not the Gospel a covenant of workes That in briefe shall be answered afterwards 4. They are testimonies whereby our election is made sure 2 Pet. 4. Because testimonies assuring us of our election 1. ver 10. Make your calling and election sure The Vulgar Translator interprets those words per bona opera and complaineth of Luther as putting this out of the Text because it made against him but it 's no part of Scripture Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very diligent and the rather which is spoken ex abundanti to make their calling and election sure What God doth in time or what he hath decreed from eternity to us in love to make sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Estius and other Papists strive for firme and not sure and so indeed the word is sometimes used but here the Apostle speaketh not of what it is in it selfe but what it is to us and the certainty thereof And observe the Apostles motives for making our election sure 1. Ye shall never faile the word is used sometimes of grievous and sometimes of lesser sins but here hee meaneth such a failing that a man shall not recover again 2. An entrance shall be abundantly ministred into heaven It 's true these are not testimonies without the Spirit of God 5. They are a condition without which a man cannot be saved So 5. Because we cannot be saved without them that although a man cannot by the presence of them gather a cause of his salvation yet by the absence of them he may conclude his damnation so that it is an inexcusable speech of the Antinomian Good works doe not profit us nor bad hinder us thus Islebius Now the Scripture how full is it to the contrary Rom. 8. 13. If yee live after
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
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
to be shewed 4. How can God upbraid or reprove men for their transgressions Necessity of sinning hinders not the delight and willingnesse man hath in sin and consequently God may reprove him for his transgressions if they could doe no other waies This also seemeth very strange if men can doe no otherwise Is not this as ridiculous to threaten them as that of Xerxes who menaced the sea I answer No because still whatsoever man offends in it 's properly his fault and truly his sin for whatsoever he sinneth in he doth it voluntarily and with much delight and is therefore the freer in sin by how much the more he delights in it And this Austin would diligently inculcate that so no man might think to cast his faults upon God There is no man forced to sin but hee doth it with all his inclination and delight How farre voluntarinesse is requisite to the nature of a sin at least actuall though not to originall is not now to be determined for we all acknowledge that this necessity of sinning in every man doth not hinder the delight and willingnesse he hath in it at the same time Nor should this be thought so absurd for even Aristotle saith * Cap. 5. l. 3. Ethie ad Nicom that though men at first may choose whether they will be wicked or no yet if once habituated they cannot but be evill and yet for all that this doth not excuse but aggravate If an Ethiopian can change his skin saith the Prophet then may you doe good who have accustomed your selves to doe evill The Oake while it was a little plant might be pulled up but when it 's growne into its full breadth and height none can move it Now if it be thus of an habit how much more of originall sin which is the depravation of the nature And howsoever Austin was shye of calling it naturale malum for fear of the Manichees yet sometimes he would doe it Well therefore doth the Scripture use those sharp reprofes and upbraidings because there is no man a sinner or a damner of himselfe but it is by his owne fault and withall these serve to be a goad and a sharp thorne in the sinners side whereby he is made restlesse in his sin 5. To what purpose are exhortations and admonitions Though Though God works all our good in us yet exhortations are the instrument whereby he works it the other answers might serve for this yet something may be specially answered here which is that though God work all our good in us and for us yet it is not upon us as stockes or stones but he dealeth sutably to our natures with arguments and reasons And if you say To what purpose Is it any more then if the Sun should shine or a candle be held out to a blind man Yes because these exhortations and the word of God read or preached are that instrument by which God will work these things Therefore you are not to look upon preaching as a meere exhortation but as a sanctified medium or instrument by which God worketh that he exhorteth unto Sometimes indeed we reade that God hath sent his Prophets to exhort those whom yet he knew would not hearken Thus he sent Moses to bid Pharaoh let the people of Israel go and thus the Prophets did preach when they could not beleeve because of the deafnesse and blindnesse upon them But unto the godly these are operative meanes and practicall even as when God said Let there be light and there was light or when Christ said Lazarus come forth of the grave And this by the way should keep you from despising the most plaine ministery or preaching that is for a Sermon doth not work upon your hearts as it is thus elegant thus admirable but as it is an instrument of God appointed to such an end Even as Austin said The conduits of water though one might be in the shape of an Angell another of a beast yet the water doth refresh as it is water not as it comes from such a conduit or the seed that is throwne into the ground fructifieth even that which comes from a plaine hand as well as that which may have golden rings or jewels upon it not but that the Minister is to improve his gifts Qui dedit Petrum piscatorem dedit Cyprianum rhetorem but only to shew whence the power of God is Bonorum ingoniorum insignis est indoles in verbis verum amare non verba Quid obest clavis lignea quando nihil aliud quaerimus nisi patere clausum 6. The Scripture makes conversion and repentance to be our acts How conversion and repentance may be said to be our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace And this cannot be denied but that we are the subject who being acti agimus enabled by grace doe work for grace cannot be but in an intelligent subject As before the Manna fell upon the ground there fell a dew which say Interpreters was preparatory to constringe and bind the earth that it might receive the Manna so doth reason and liberty qualifie the subject that it is passively capable of grace but when enabled by grace it is made active also These be places indeed have stuck much upon some which hath made them demand Why if those promises of God converting us doe prove conversion to be his act should not other places also which bid us turne unto the Lord prove that it is our act The answer is easie none deny but that to beleeve and to turne unto God are our acts we cannot beleeve without the mind and will That of Austin is strong and good If because it 's said Not of him that willeth and runneth but of him that sheweth mercy man is made a partiall cause with God then we may as well say Not in him that sheweth mercy but in him that runneth and willeth But the Question is Whether we can doe this of our selves with grace Or Whether grace onely enable us to doe it That distinction of Bernards is very cleere The heart of a man is the subjectum in quo but not à quo the subject in which not from which this grace proceedeth Therefore you are not to conceive when grace doth enable the mind and will to turne unto God as if those motions of grace had such an impression upon the heart as when the seale imprints a stamp upon the wax or when wine is poured into the vessell where the subject recipient doth not move or stirre at all Nor is it as when Balaam's Asse spake or as when a stone is throwne into a place nor as an enthusiasticall or arreptitious motion as those that spake oracles and understood not Nor as those that are possessed of Satan which did many things wherein the mind and will had no action at all but the Spirit of God inclineth the Will and Affections to their proper object Nor is the Antinomians similitude sound that
to beleeve so far as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject and repentance are now parts of that image This is a dispute among Arminians who plead Adam had not a power to beleeve in Christ and therefore it 's unjust in God to require faith of us who never had power in Adam to doe it The Answer is easie that Adam had power to beleeve so farre as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject It was a greater power then to beleeve in Christ and therefore it was from the defect of an object that he could not doe it as Adam had love in him yet there could be no miserable objects in that state to shew his love As for that other Question Whether repentance be part of the Repentance as it flowes from a regenerate nature reductively the image of God image of God Answ So far forth as it denoteth an imperfection in the subject it cannot be the image of God for we doe not resemble God in these things yet as it floweth from a regenerated nature so far it is reductively the image of God 3. Whether this shall be restored to us in this life againe Howsoever Gods image not fully repaired in us in this life we are said to be partakers of the divine nature and to be renewed in the image of God yet we shall not in this life have it fully repaired God hath declared his will in this and therefore are those stubs of sin and imperfection left in us that we might be low in our selves bewaile our losse and long for that heaven where the soule shall be made holy and the body immortall yet for all this we are to pray for the full abolition of sin in this life because Gods will and our duty to be holy as he is holy is the ground of our prayer and not his decree for to have such or such things done Yea this corruption is so far rooted in us now that it is not cleansed out of us by meere death but by cinerifaction consuming the body to ashes for we know Lazarus and others that dyed being restored againe to life yet could not be thought to have the image of God perfectly as they were obnoxious to sin and death Use 1. To humble our selves under this great losse Consider what we were and what we are how holy once how unholy now and here who can but take up bitter mourning Shall we lament because we are banished from houses and habitations because we have lost our estates and comforts and shall we not be affected here This argueth us to be carnall more then spirituall we have lost a father a friend and we wring our hands we cry We are undone and though we have lost God and his image all happinesse thereby yet we lay it not to heart Oh think what a glorious thing it was to enjoy God without any interruption no proud heart no earthly heart no lazie heart to grapple with see it in Paul Oh miserable man that I am c. Basil compareth Paul to a man thrown off his horse and dragg'd after him and he crieth out for help so is Paul throwne downe by his corruptions and dragged after them Use 2. To magnifie the grace of God in Christ which is more potent to save us then Adams sin can be to destroy us This is of comfort to the godly Rom. 5. the Apostle on purpose makes a comparison between them and sheweth the preheminency of one to save above the other to destroy There is more in Christ to save then in Adam to damne Christs obedience is a greater good then Adams sin is an evill It 's more honour to God then this is or can be a dishonour Let not then sin be great in thy thoughts in thy conscience in thy feares and grace small and weak As the time hath been when thy heart hath felt the gall and wormwood of sin so let it be to feele the power of Christ As thy soule hath said By one man sin so let it say By one man life LECTURE XIII GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die I Have already handled this Text as it containeth a law given to Adam by God as a soveraigne Lord over him now I shall re-assume this Text and consider it as part of a Covenant which God did enter into with Adam and his posterity for these two things a Law and a Covenant arise from different grounds The Law is from God as supreme and having absolute power and so requiring subjection the other ariseth from the love and goodnesse of God whereby he doth sweeten and mollifie that power of his and ingageth himselfe to reward that obedience which were otherwise due though God should never recompence it The words therefore being heretofore explained and the Text eas'd of all difficulties I observe this Doctrine That Doctr. God did not onely as a Law-giver injoyne obedience unto Adam but The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid downe then the covenant of grace after the fall as a loving God did also enter into covenant with him And for the opening of this you must take these Considerations 1. That this covenant with Adam in the state of innocency is more obscurely laid downe then the covenant of grace after the fall for afterwards you have the expresse name of the Covenant and the solemne entring into it by both parties but this Covenant made with Adam must only be gathered by deduction and consequence This Text cometh the neerest to a Covenant because here is the threatning expressed and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience We are not therefore to be so rigid as to call for expresse places which doe name this Covenant for that which is necessarily and immediately drawne from Scripture is as truly Scripture as that which is expresly contained in it Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandements by way of Covenant 1. From the evill threatned and the good promised For while That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant appeares 1. From evill threatned and good promised there is a meere command so long it is a law onely but when it is further confirmed by promises and threatnings then it becomes a Covenant And if that position be true of some which maketh the tree of life a sacrament then here was not onely nudum pactum a meer covenant but a seale also to confirme it And certainly being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature it was of his meere goodnesse to become ingaged in a promise for this I know it 's a Question by some Whether Adam upon his obedience should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in that naturall life which was marvellous happy But either way would have been by meere promise of God not by any
promulgation of it and a solemn repetition but yet the Law did perpetually sound in the Church ever since it was a Church And this consideration will make much to set forth the excellency of it it being a perpetuall meanes and instrument which God hath used in his Church for information of duty conviction of sin and exhortation to all holinesse So that men who speak against the use of the Law and the preaching of it doe oppose the universall way of the Church of God in the Old and New Testament 6. The end why God gave this law to them I spake before of the The ends of the promulgation of the Law were end why he gave it then now I speake of the finall cause in generall and here I shall not speak of it in reference to Christ or Justification that is to be thought on when we handle it as a Covenant but only as it was an absolute rule or law And here it will be a great errour to think the promulgation of it had but one end for there were many ends 1. Because much corruption had now seised upon mankind 1. That the Israelites might see what holinesse was required of them and the people of Israel had lived long without the publick worship and service of God it was necessary to have this law enjoyned them that they might see farre more purity and holinesse required of them then otherwise they would be perswaded of 2. By this meanes they would come to know sinne as the A 2. That they might come to know sin and be humbled postle speakes and so be deeply humbled in themselves the law of God being a cleare light to manifest those inward heart-sins and soule-lusts that crawle in us as so many toads and serpents which we could never discover before 3. Hereby was shadowed forth the excellent and holy nature 3. To shadow out unto them the excellent and holy nature of God of God as also what purity was accepted by him and how we should be holy as he himself is holy for the law is holy as God is holy It s nothing but an expression and draught of that great purity which is in his nature insomuch that it s accounted the great wisedome of that people of Israel to have such lawes and the very nations themselves should admire at it 7. The great goodnesse and favour of God in delivering this law to The delivering of this Law to the Israelites was a great mercy unto them them And this comes fitly in the next place to consider of that it was an infinite mercy of God to that people to give them this law Hence Deut. 9. and in other places how often doth God presse them with this love of his in giving them those commandements And that it was not for their sakes or because of any merit in them but because he loved them So David Psal 147. hee hath not done so to other nations And to this may be referred all the benefits that the Psalmist and Prophets doe make to come by the law of God insomuch that it is a very great ingratitude and unthankfulnes unto God when people cry down the Law and the preaching of it That which God speakes of as a great mercy to a people these doe reject Nor because that God hath vouchsafed greater expressions of his love to us in these latter dayes therefore may those former mercies be forgotten by us seeing the Law doth belong unto us for those ends it was given to the Jewes now under the Gospel as is to be proved as much as unto them And therefore you cannot reade one commandement in the spirituall explication of it for the law is spirituall but you have cause to blesse God saying Lord what are we that thy will should be so clearly and purely manifested to us above what it is to Heathens yea and Papists with many others Therefore beloved it is not enough for you to be no Antinomian but you are to blesse God and praise him for it that it s read and opened in our congregations 8. The perfection of this law containing a perfect rule of all things The Law of Moses is a perfect rule belonging to God or man And here againe I shall not speak of it as a covenant but meerly as its a rule of obedience And thus though it be short yet it s so perfect that it containeth all that is to be done or omitted by us Insomuch that all the Prophets and Apostles doe but adde the explication of the Law if it be not taken in too strict a sense Hence is that commandement of not adding to it or detracting from it And in what sense the Apostle speakes against it calling it the killing letter and the ministration of death working wrath is to be shewed hereafter When our Saviour Matth. 5. gave those severall precepts he did not adde them as new unto the Morall Law but did vindicate that from the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees is is to be proved Indeed it may seem hard to say that Christ and justifying faith the doctrine of the Trinity is included in this promulgation of the Law but it is to be proved that all these were then comprehended in the administration of it though more obscurely Nor will this be to confound the Law and the Gospel as some may think This law therefore and rule of life which God gave the people of Israel and to all us Christians in them is so perfect and full that there is nothing necessary to the duty and worship of God which is not here commanded nor no sin to be avoided which is not here forbidden And this made Peter Martyr as you heard compare it to the ten Predicaments Vse Of Admonition to take heed how we vilifie or contemne this Law of God either doctrinally or practically Doctrinally so the Marcionites and the Manichees and Basilides whereof some have said it was carnall yea that it was from a Divell and that it was given to the Jewes for their destruction because it 's said to worke wrath and to be the instrument of death And those opinions and expressions of the Antinomians about it are very dangerous What shall we revile that which is Gods great mercy to a people Because the Jewes and Papists doe abuse the Law and the works of it to justification shall it not therefore have its proper place and dignity How sacred are the lawes of a Common-wealth which yet are made by men But this is by the wise God Take heed therefore of such phrases An Old-Testament-spirit and His Sermon is nothing but an explication of the Law For it ought much to rejoyce thee to heare that pure and excellent image of Gods holinesse opened How mayest thou delight to have that purity enjoyned which will make thee loath thy selfe prize Christ and Grace more and be a quick goad to all holinesse And if you say Here is nothing
broken hearts stung with sinne The Priest and the Levite they passe by not pitying of him But now the Subject to whom the Gospel is given is a broken hearted sinner one that feeleth himselfe ready to be covered over with all confusion one that lyeth wounded in conscience crying for some oyle to be poured into his wounds Oh! what miserable comforters then must all Popish and Socinian Doctors be who will advise the sinfull tempted man to seek out works for the Law which is as uncomfortable as to bid a sicke diseased man get some of the Philosophers stone or to eate a piece of a Phoenix and then and not till then hee shall be in ease Lastly The Law differeth in the forme of it from the Gospel The 5. The Law conditionall the Gospel absolute Law is conditionall but the Gospel absolute I find this Question a very troublesome one Whether the Gospel be absolute or no Whether Gospel be a doctrine of workes Whether it hath precepts or threatnings Now the meaning of this Question is not Whether the Gospel be so absolute that it requireth not faith as a condition Or Whether it be so absolute as that it excludeth all repentance and holinesse hee is an infant in Scripture that thinketh so But Whether the Gospel doth promise eternall life to a man for any dignity intention merit work or any disposition in us under any distinction or notion whatsoever or only to faith apprehending Christ. Now the Answer is that if we take the Gospel largely for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles there is no question but they pressed duty of mortification and sanctification threatning those that do not so but if you take the Gospel strictly then it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sinnes through Christ not requiring any other duty as a condition or using any threatning words thereunto But then it may be demanded To which is repentance reduced Is it a duty of the Law or a duty of the Gospel Of the Law strictly taken it cannot be because that admitteth none Must it not therefore be of the Gospel And I find in this particular different either expressions or opinions and generally the Lutheran Divines doe oppose the Antinomians upon this very ground that the Gospel is not a Sermon of repentance nor doth exhort thereunto but it must be had from the Law which doth prepare them for Christ I shall therefore because this was the foundation of Antinomianisme and it had its rise from hence handle the next day this Question Whether the Gospel doth command repentance or no. Or Whether it be onely from the Law LECTURE XXVII ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith I Proceed to the handling of this Question Whether the Gospel preach repentance or no seeing this made the great commotion at first between the Orthodoxe and Antinomians I shall despatch this in few words 1. The word Repentance is taken sometimes largely and sometimes Repentance strictly taken is distinguished from Faith strictly when it is taken largely it comprehends faith in it and is the whole turning unto God Rev. 2. 5. sometimes it is used strictly for sorrow about sinne and so distinguished from faith Thus they repented not that they might beleeve and faith and repentance are put together Now all the while a man hath trouble and sorrow for sinne without faith it is like the body without the soule yea it carrieth a man with Cain and Judas into the very pit of despaire when a man seeth how much is against him and not how much is for him it cannot but crush and weigh him downe to the ground The teares of repentance are like those waters very bitter till Christ sweeten them 2. Consider this that the Law was never meerly and solely administred The Law and the Gospel are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery nor yet the Gospel but they are twinnes that are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery Howsoever strictly taken there is a vaste gulfe of opposition between each other yet in their use they become exceeding subservient and helpfull mutually It is not good for the Law to be alone nor yet the Gospel Now the old Antinomians they taught repentance by the Gospel onely that so the Law might be wholly excluded thus they did not consider what usefull subserviency they had to one another The Law directeth commandeth and humbleth The Gospel that comforteth refresheth and supporteth And it is a great wisedome in a Christian when hee hath an eye upon both Many are cast down because they onely consider the perfection of the Law and their in ability thereunto On the other side some grow secure and loose by attending to free grace onely I doe acknowledge that free grace will melt the heart into kindnes and the fire will melt as well as the hammer batter into pieces but yet even this cannot be done without some use of the Law 3. Therefore being there is such a neare linck between both these Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel in their practicall use wee need not with some Learned men make two Commandements of the Gospel onely to wit the Command to beleeve and the other Command to repent neither need we with others make these Commands Appendices to the Gospel but conclude thus that seeing Faith and Repentance have something initiall in them and something consummative in them therefore they are both wrought by Law and Gospel also so that as they say there is a legall repentance and an evangelicall so we may say there is a legall faith which consists in beleeving of the threatnings and the terrours of the Lord and there is an evangelicall faith which is in applying of Christ in the Promises So that legall faith and repentance may be called so initially and when it is evangelicall it may be said to be consummate If therefore you aske Whether Faith and Repentance be by the Law or by the Gospel I answer It is by both and that these must not be separated one from the other in the command of these duties Hence fourthly unbeliefe is a sin against the Law as well as against Unbeliefe a sin against the Law as well as the Gospel the Gospel Indeed the Gospel that doth manifest and declare the object of justifying faith but the Law condemneth him that doth not beleeve in him Therefore Moses and the Law is said to beare witnesse of Christ and to accuse the Jewes for refusing the Messias The Law that requireth beliefe in whatsoever God shall reveale The Gospel that makes known Christ and then the Law this as it were enlightened by the Gospel doth fasten a command upon us to beleeve in Christ This is true if you take the Law strictly and separately from Moses his administration of it but if you take it largely as it was delivered by Moses then
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