the nature and extent of it is spirituall for it forbids the sins of the spirit not only 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 wrinkles 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 beleever 1. To the ungodly it hath this use 1. To restrain and limit sin And certainly though it should 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 with devils 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 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 soul 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 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 complain 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 commands 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 only the unruly colt that is yet untamed but the horse that is broken hath a bit and bridle also and so not only the ungodly but even the godly whose hearts have been much broken and tamed doe yet need a bridle Lest they should cast off the Spirit of God that would govern them 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 do not feele it 2. To enlighten and discover unto them daily more and more heart-sinne and soul-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 It is thy errour to think sins were born with thee no they afterwards came upon thee Erras si tecum vitia nasci putas supervenerunt ingesta sunt And so Pelagius his assertion was that We are born as well without vice as virtue 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 own power and righteousnesse 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 worms 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 own 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 self-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 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
notice of that as the commandement of the Law so also the promises of the Gospel do only stirre up evill in the heart totally unsanctified 6. It is abrogated in many accessaries and circumstantials Even the Morall Law considered in some particulars is abrogated totally as in the manner of writing which was in tables of stone We know the first tables were broken and what became of the last or how long they continued none can tell and this makes Paul use that opposition 2 Cor. 3. 3. Not in tables of stone but in the fleshly tables of the heart Although this you must know that the doctrine of the Gospel as written with inke and paper doth no more availe for any spirituall working then the Law written in tables Therefore the Apostle useth in that verse this phrase Not written with inke as well as Not in tables of stone And this is to be observed against the Antinomians who to disparage the Law may say that was written in stones what good can that do May we not also say she doctrine of the Gospel that is written in paper and what can that do 7. But the Law doth perpetually continue as a rule to them 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 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 do denote a mutation in the Law but when it speaks of the Morall Law it saith We are dead to it We are redeemed from the curse of it Which Phrases do 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 unlawful 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 see something for their purpose 2. From the sanctification and holinesse that is required of the 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 sin in the beleever For there can be no sin unlesse it be a transgression of a Law as the Apostle John defineth sin Now then when David commits adultery when Peter denyeth Christ are not these sins in them If so is not Davids sin a sin because it is against such and such a Commandement As for their evasion it is a sin 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 sin of such kind 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 it's place 4. From the difference of the Morall Law and the other lawes 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 it's 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 sin whereas the matter of the Morall Law is perpetually good and the not doing of it is necessarily a sin I speak of that matter which Divines call Morall naturall Can we thinke that to the Apostle it was all one whether a man was a murderer adulterer or chast and innocent as it was whether a man was circumcised or not circumcised Tertullian said well Lib. de Pud Cap. 6. Operum juga rejecta sunt non disciplinarum libertas in christo non fecit innocentiae injuriam manet lex tota pietatis sanctitatis c. The burthens of the Ceremoniall Law are removed not the commands of holinesse liberty in Christ is not injurious to innocency 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 LECTVRE 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 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 herestand to dispute whether John Baptist was to be reckoned under the Old Testament or the New
It 's good instrumentally as used by Gods Spirit for good It 's disputed by some Whether the Law and the preaching of it is used as an instrument by the Spirit of God for conversion But that will be an entire Question in it self only thus much at this time The Spirit of God doth use the Law to quicken up the heart of a beleever unto his duty Psal 119. Thou hast quickened me by thy precepts And so Psal 19. The Law of the Lord enlightneth the simple and by them thy servant is fore-warn'd of sinne You will say The word Law is taken largely there for all precepts and testimonies It 's true but it 's not exclusive of 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 Let the soul be put into the body and it 's a living reasonable man But now as when we say A man discourses A man understands this is ratione animae in respect of his soul not corporis of the body 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 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 speakes 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 only carnall and had only 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 the Law commands and Grace helps and Lex imperat the Law commands and Fides impetrat Faith obtaineth then the Law can have no sanction by Promise But where can this be shewed in Scripture When we speake of the sanction of the Law by Promise we take it as in the administration of it by Moses which was Evangelicall not as it was given to Adam with a Promise of Eternall life upon perfect obedience for the Apostle Paul's propositions To him that worketh the reward is reckoned of debt and the doers of the Law are justified were never verificable but in the state of innocency 5. In respect of the acts of it You may call them either acts 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 denyed even to the godly I wonder much at an Antinomian authour that saith 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 so the Angels were under a law else they could not have finned yet it was not a cursing law It 's true if we take cursing or condemning potentially so a law is alwayes condemning but for actuall cursing that is not necessary no not to a transgressour of the Law that hath a surety in his roome 6. In respect of the end of it Rom. 16. 4. Christ is the end of the 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 fulness 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 not 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 partibus in Christum respiciat Imò quicquid Lex docet quicquid praecipit quicquid promittit Christum pro scopo habet We have a noble place proving that the Law in all its parts did look to Christ yea whatsoever the Law teacheth commandeth or promiseth it hath Christ for its scope 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 Law and 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 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 himself 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
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 die 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 God-head 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 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 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 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 speaks of such most of the Latine Interpreters both ancient and modern 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 seemeth 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 speak of Gentiles abiding so but in this sense there is also a dangerous 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 sound 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 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 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 work 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 do refuse that distinction of a morall good and theologicall because every morall good ought to be theologicall 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 enabled by grace but this is shewed to be improbable By nature therefore we may understand that naturall light of conscience whereby they judged and performed some externall acts though these were done by the help of God The
the making up of that covenant I shall handle both those distinctly and first let us consider Gods positive law in the text which is also called by Divines a symbolicall precept because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature but indifferent and only evil because prohibited So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two wayes first by that which is proper to it the tree of knowledge of good and evil secondly by that which is accidentall to it viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it And that this commandement might be the better received in the Verse before God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this When God made this world as a great house he puts man into it as his tenant and by this tryall of obedience he must acknowledge his Land-lord That Adam did eate in the state of innocency and was hungry doth appeare by this text onely hunger was not in him as it is in us with paine and trouble The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine which is That God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heart did give a positive law to try his obedience The doubts in explicating of this point are 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill And here certainly wee must take heed of being too curious lest as it was Adams sin to eate of it so it may be our curiosity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it Now when I aske what is meant by it I doe not understand what kind of fruit or tree it was whether apple or fig that cannot be determined but why it had that name The Rabbins who have as many foolish dreames about the Old Testament as the Friars about the New conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the use of reason and that this tree was to accelerate it And indeed the Socinians border upon this opinion for they say Adam and Eve were created very simple and weak in understanding and say they it 's impossible to conceive that if Adams soule were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces as the firmament is bespangled with stars how he should come to eate of the forbidden fruit or to sin against God But both these are false That he had perfect knowledge appeareth in his giving names to the creatures and to Eve so fitting and apt and Eph. 3. the image of God is said to have a renewed mind and that though thus knowing he did yet sin and though thus holy hee did yet fall it was because hee was not perfectly confirmed but mutable Indeed Divines doe much labour to expresse how his sin did begin whether in the Will first or in the Understanding but that is impertinent to this matter That which is the most received both by Austin and others is that it was so called not from any effect but from the event because it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill and so it 's usuall in Scripture to call that by a name which it had afterward Now though this be generally received and cannot well be rejected yet certainly it may be further said that it was not called so by the meere event but by the divine decree and appointment of God as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam that hee should not desire to know more or otherwise then God had appointed 2. Why God would give a positive law besides that of the naturall law in his heart There are these reasons commonly given 1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged for to obey the naturall law might be a necessary condition and not an act of the Will Even as the Heathens doe abstaine from many sins not because forbidden by God but as dissonant to their naturall reason And even among Christians there is a great deale of difference between good actions that are done because God commands and because of a naturall conscience These two principles make the same actions to differ in their whole nature Therefore God would try Adam by some positive law that so the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth and therefore Adam in this was not to consider the greatnesse or goodnesse of the matter but the will of the commander 2. Another reason which floweth from the former is that so Adams obedience might be the more tryed and be manifested to be obedience For as Austine 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 Austine 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 unbelief were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and 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 if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides
that spake then they understand to be the Son and this was done they say as a preludium to his Incarnation But some of those Ancients give a dangerous and false reason which was because they held the Father only was invisible and so apply unto the Father only that text No man hath seen God at any time so that they thought the Son might be seen but not the Father which passages the Arrians did greedily catch at afterwards But this is certain the second Person is no more visible or mutable then the first only it may be doubted whether all those administrations and apparitions which were by God in the Old Testament were not by the second Person indeed in the New Testament that voice from heaven This is my welbelou Son must needs be from the Father immediatly It hath been very hard to know when the Angel that appeared hath been a created one or increated the Son of God Tostatus gives this rule when the things communicated in Scripture as done by an Angel are of small consequence or belonging to one man or a few men then it is a created Angel but if they be matters of great concernment or belonging to many people then it is by an increated Angel he enumerates many examples which are not to my purpose neither may we be curious in determining of the former question Let the use of this be to take heed how we cry down this Law which God hath so honoured either by Doctrines or Practises We may live down the Law and we may preach down the Law both which are a reproach to it and the Law is of such a perpetuall immutable obligation that the very being of a sin is in this that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law so that if there be no obligatory power of the Law there can be no sin If the Heathen thought politicall Laws were the wals of a City and it were no advantage to have fortified wals and prostrated laws how much more is this true of Gods Commandments Those three things which are required in a Law giver authority wisdom and holiness were transcendently in God therefore every sin hath disobedience in it because it is against authority folly in it because it 's against wisdom and injustice in it because against righteousness In the next place it 's worth the observing how Paul in this place and so in his other Epistles is still carefull so to bound the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel so as neither may incroach upon each other from whence floweth this Doctrine That the Law ought so to be preached as that it should not obscure the Gospel and the Gospel so commended as that there may be no destruction to the Law This was Pauls method in all his Epistles which he diligently observed Indeed it hath been very hard so to give both their due that either the preacher or the hearer hath not thereby been inclined to make one prejudiciall to the other Not but that the Gospel is to be preferred and that in divers respects but when it is so extolled that the Law is made useless and unprofitable this is to go beyond lawfull limits and how difficult it hath been to hit the mark here appeareth in that the Iews Papists Arminians Socinians and generally all Heretiques have advanced the Law to the eclipsing of the Gospel and there have been few who have extolled the Gospel to the prejudice of the Law To proceed therefore regularly we will shew when the Law is preached prejudicially to the Gospel and when the Gospel to the Law In the first place the Law is then stretched too far when the works of it are pressed to justification whether these works be the fruits of grace or antecedaneous to grace it is not much difference to this point and this is that dangerous doctrine of the Law which the Apostle in his Epistle doth so vehemently withstand and for which he is not afraid to charge the teachers thereof with apostacy from Christ and such who make Christ and all his sufferings in vain And this is indeed to be a legall Preacher insomuch that it is an high calumny to charge Protestant Preachers with the odious accusation of legall preachers for he is not a legall preacher in the Scripture sence which presseth the duty and works of the Law but that urgeth them for justification and that righteousness which we must rely upon before the Tribunall of God and thou mayst justly fear it is thy unsanctified corrupt heart which makes thee averss from the Law in the former sence 2. The Law is used derogatory to the Gospel when Christ is not indeed excluded from justification but Christ and works are conjoyned together and this is more sugred poison then the former Now this was the doctrine of those false Apostles among the Galatians they did not totally exclude him but yet they did not make him all in all but God doth not approve of such unequall yoking It is equall impiety to preach no Christ or an half and imperfect Christ and therefore as those were cursed Doctrines which take away any of his natures so also are those which diminish of his sufficiency There is but one Mediator and as God will not give his glory to another so neither will Christ that of his Mediatorship to any other so that as God is jealous of his honour when men give it to fools no less is Christ when men give it to the works they do And this makes the way of justifying Faith so difficult because it is so inbred in mens hearts to have something of their own and so unwilling are they to be beholding to Christ for all 3. Then is the Law preached prejudicially to the Gospel when it is made of it self instrumental to work grace It cannot be denied as is hereafter to be shewn that the Law is used by God to begin and increase grace but this cometh wholly by Christ It is not of the Law it self that this spirituall vertue is communicated to men Even as when the woman touched the hem of Christs garment It was not efficacy from the hem but from Christ that wrought so wonderfully in her It is one thing to say grace is given with the preaching of the Law and another thing by the Law so that the Gospel must be acknowledged the onely fountain both of grace justifying and sanctifying for as in natural things if no Sun did arise every creature would lie dead as it were in its own inability to do any thing there would be no naturall life or growth so if the Son of righteousness do not arise with healing no Law or Ordinance could ever be beneficiall to us In the second place the Gospel may be extolled to the ruin of the Law and that first when it is said to bring a liberty not only from the damnatory power but also the obligatory power of it How well would it be
cannot tell how to defend those that do kill the invader and to this purpose others It is maintained by some that though indeed a man is not bound to be killed rather then to kill yet if he do chuse the former rather then the latter he doth a work full of charity and worthy of admiration Another saith these precepts of Christ were given to the Disciples who were by their blood to increase the Church and by their patience and humility to convert tyrants but now modernis non congruit nec locum habet hodie esset enim ad detrimentum Ecclesiae It doth not hold in these latter times for that would be to the prejudice of the Church A foolish assertion As these go too high so the Jesuits in their cases they go too low and give too much roome to the revenge of man for so it 's determined by them That a noble man though he may save his life by flying when invaded suddenly yet is not bound to fly but may lawfully kill the invader If he cannot otherwise preserve his life and honour together But this is corrupt counsell and opens a way to many murders upon a pretence of honour 3. Take notice of this That the Law of God in the Old-Testament was as strict against revenge as any precept in the New-Testament and therefore nothing is now required of us which was not then Consider that place Lev. 19. 16. Thou shalt not avenge or beare any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that do rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old-Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it selfe to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknown to the Fathers in the primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old-Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plaine thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2. Chron. 19. You execute the judgments of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefly these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an â—ntinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification that the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our new birth for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgments of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag. 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to work the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law works onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministry that whether it be by Law or Gospell he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it not for the Gospel-promise Nemo potest implere legem per legem None can obey the Law by the Law meerly Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things we preach may be advantagious to our souls so that there never was in the Church of God meer pure Law or meer pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of conversion The question is not then whether converting grace be ex lege or vi legis of or by the power of the Law but whether it may be cum lege with the preaching of the Law I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias agat Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not meddle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion
righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistle and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousnesse of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but we find this in effect Deut 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the righteousnesse which is by faith And Beza doth acknowledg that that which Moses speakes of the Law Paul doth apply to the Gospel Now how can this be reconciled unlesse wee distinguish between the generall doctrine of Moses which was delivered unto the people in the circumstantiall administrations of it and the particular doctrine about the Law taken in a limited and abstracted consideration Onely this take notice of that although the Law were a Covenant of grace yet the righteousnesse of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth But the Papists they make this difference The righteousnesse of the Law saith Stapleton Antid in hunc locum is that which we of our owne power have and doe by the knowledge and understanding of the Law but the righteousnesse of faith they make the righteousnesse of the Law to which wee are enabled by grace through Christ So that they compare not these two together as two contraries in which sense Paul doth but as an imperfect righteousnesse with a perfect But we know that the Apostle excludeth the workes of David Abraham that they did in obedience to the Law to which they were enabled by grace so necessary is it in matter of justification and pardon to exclude all workes any thing that is ours Tolle te à te impedis te said Austine well Nor doth it availe us that this grace in us is from God because the Apostle makes the opposition wholy between any thing that is ours howsoever we come by it and that of faith in Christ Having thus explained the state of the Question I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative And thus I shall order them The first shall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters God on one part and the Israelites on the other God did not deale at this time as absolutely considered but as their God and Father Hence God saith hee is their God and when Christ quoteth the commanders hee brings the preface Heare O Israel the Lord thy God is one And Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites belong adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the promises Now unlesse this were a covenant of grace how could God be their God who were sinners Thus also if you consider the people of Israel into what relation they are taken this will much confirme the point Ezod 19. 5 6. If yee will obey my voice you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me and yee shall be unto me a kingdom of Priests and an holy Nation which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Gospel If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of works how could such an agreement come betweene them 2. If we consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant it must needs be a Covenant of grace for there we have remission and pardon of sinne whereas in the Covenant of workes there is no way for repentance or pardon In the second Commandment God is described to be one shewing mercy unto thousands and by shewing mercy is meant pardon as appeareth by the contrary visiting iniquity Now doth the Law strictly taken receive any humbling debasing of themselves no but curseth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded and that with a full and perfect obedience Hence Exod. 34. ver 6 7. God proclaimeth himselfe in manifold attributes of being gracious and long-suffering keeping mercie for thousands and forgiving iniquity and this he doth upon the renewing of the two Tables whereas if the people of Israel had been strictly held up to the Law as it required universall perfect obedience without any failing they must also necessarily have despaired and perished without any hope at all 3. If we consider the duties commanded in the Law so generally taken it must needs be a Covenant of grace for what is the meaning of the first Commandment but to have one God in Christ our God by faith For if faith had not been on such tearmes commanded it had been imposible for them to love God or to pray unto God Must not the meaning then be to love and delight in God and to trust in him But how can this be without faith through Christ Hence some urge that the end of the commandment is love from faith unfeigned but because Scultetus doth very probably by commandment understand there The Apostles preaching and exhortation it being in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostle using the word in that Epistle in the same sense I leave it It 's true there is no mention made of Christ or faith in the first Commandment but that is nothing for love also is not mentioned yet our Saviour discovers it there and so must faith and Christ be supposed there by necessary consequence And can we think that the people of Israel though indeed they were too confident in themselves yet when they took upon themselves to keep and observe the Law that the meaning was they would do it without any spot or blemish by sinne or without the grace of God for pardon if they should at any time break the Law 4. From the Ceremoniall Law All Divines say that this is reduced to the Morall Law so that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the second Commandment Now we all know that the Sacrifices were evangelicall and did hold forth remission of sinns through the blood of Christ If therefore these were commanded by the Morall Law there
no pardon because many of them did fall into such gross sins for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sin against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Now if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin they could not have done it I reply what and if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himself to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sin Why doth he Isa 1. call upon Ierusalem to repent of her whoredoms murders saying If their sins were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole box of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs blood cleansing from all sin I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he mean it universaly They were to confess their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himselfe Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God speaks to the Church that while she was in her blood he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Iews as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isa 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Iews before God called them Did the Iews first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins then all those argumments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our owne righteousness c. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame A Iew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will do something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we were enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Iews Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here meddle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by it's own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unless the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs blood at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himselfe from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it only is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I ask whether God did not justifie David and the ungodly in those dayes from all eternity as they speak and if he did why should not all their sins be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sins pardoned in the like manner In the mean while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sins done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as we God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours if God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say We may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and he much necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore he is called a Lamb slain from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I deny that even under the
the Jews 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 vail upon the Israelites heart hindered the sight of it Now saith Paul when it shall turn as we translate or rather when they shall turn for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observed to be used alwayes 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 vail shall be taken away or rather as Camero well observeth in the present tense It is taken away for you cannot conceive that the Jews shall be first turned unto God and the vail 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 Jews 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 the end of the Law being to justifie and to bring to eternall life this could not be attained by our own 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 laws be to make good and honest men much rather is the end of the Morall Law appointed by God himself But the Law is so far from making us good as that it worketh in us all evill which effect of the Law in himself 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 holiness and life becometh to cause sin and death Christ therefore that the Law may have its end he taketh our nature upon him that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that the meere knowledge of the Law with the externall obedience only to it was not availeable 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 righteousness or holiness of works but it is imperfect and so not enabling 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 non 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 was the great mistake of the Jews 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 righteousness 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 far 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 righteousness So Rom. 8. 3 4. That which was impossible to the Law God sent his Son that the righteousness 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 righteousness 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 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 real righteousness though it be not our inherent righteousness 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 righteousness of Christs is not ours by working but by beleeving Now the Law in that command Do this and live did require our personall working and righteousness so that we cannot be said to have salvation by that rule because it is not the righteousness which we in person have wrought and this will fully appear if you consider in the next place the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness and that is to him that beleeveth he doth not say to him that worketh so that we have not eternall life by our Do this but by beleeving or resting upon Christ his Do this And this phrase doth plainly exclude Stapletons and other Papists observations on this place as if the righteousness by faith or
10 17 17 203 Acts. 7 37 14  38 208 Romanes 1 18 68  19 77 2 14. 15 57  27 265 3 27 238  31 202 4 5 36  14 237 5 1 24  6. 8. 10 37 6 15 224 7 1. 2 227  per totum 9 8 11 38  13   29. 30 36 13 12 43 12 1 44 14 22 281 1 Corinthians 2 14  7 37 85 9 20 226 15 10 94 2 Corinthians 3 7 267 3 11 211 6 16 38 Galat. 3. 2 205  18   23 16  23. 24 269 4 24 157 5 23 54 5 5. 4. 13. 14 221 5 20 279 Ephesians 1 10 140. 134 2 14 211  15 212 3 12 38 6 2 171  14. 16 43 Philip. 3. 9 218 1 Thes 2. 16 265 1 Timothy 1 8. 9 17 1 9 49 4 8 42 7 5 265 2 Timothy 4 8 41 Titus 2 11. 12 204  14 40 Hebrewes 6 18 218 9 4 163  7 247  13. 14 245 10 17 244 11 16 253 12 5. 6. 7. 8 245  ult 34 Jam. 2. 8 265 1 Peter 3. 1 46 2 Peter 1 10 42  19 252 2 2. 15. 21 33 FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. The Text opened 1. The Law is good in respect of the matter 2. In respect of the authority of it 3. It 's instrumentally good 4. The Law is good in respect of its sanction 5. In respect of the acts of it * Assert of free grace pag. 31. 6. In respect of the end 7. In respect of the adjuncts 8. In respect of the use of it 1. Because it restrains and limits sin in the ungodly 2. Because it condemnes them 1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption 2. It discovers sin unto them 3. It makes them disclaim all their own righteousnes 4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits 1. The Law according to the use of the word in the Scripture is not onely a strict 〈◊〉 of things to be done by way of command but denoteth any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept The acceptions of the word Law in Scripture are divers 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another 4. Christs obedience exempts not us from ours 5. Beleevers sins condemned though not their persons * Dr Crisp 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it * Dr Crisp 7. The Law though primarily it requireth perfect holinesse yet it excludes not a Mediatour The Law though it cannot justifie us is notwithstanding good and not to be rejected Grace and Christ not to be advanced oppositely to the Law The abuse of the Law no derogation to it 1. The Law is abused when converted to unprofitable disputes 2. When in the handling of it respect is had to worldly ends 3. When men deny it 4. When they misinterpret it 5. When they oppose it to Christ 6. When they expect justification by it 1. Justification by the Law overthrowes the nature of grace 2. Opposeth the fulnesse of Christ 3. Destroyes the true doctrine of Justification 4. Overthrows justifying faith 5. Discourageth the broken-hearted sinner 6. Brings men into themselves 7. Overthrowes the doctriâ—e of imputed righteousnesse 8. Keeps a man slavish in all his duties 9. Joyns a mans own graces to Christs mediation 10. Overthrowes hope 11. Robs God of his glory 12. Makes more in sin to damne then in Christ to save 13. Overthrowes the doctrine of sanctification 14. Takes away the doctrine of the Law 15. Overthroweth the consideration of man while he is justified Ministers ought so to set forth grace and defend good works as thereby to give the Enemy neither cause of exception nor insultation 1. Antinomians deny works to be a way to heaven 2. They deny their presence in the person justified 3. They deny any gain or losse to come by them 4. They deny them to be signes of grace How God may be said to justifie the ungodly Foure things required to the essence of good works Good works are necessary 1. Because they are the fruit of Christs death 2. Because in respect of evill workes there is some Analogy between heaven and them 3. Because a promise is made unto them 4. Because testimonies assuring us of our election 5. Because we cannot be saved without them 6. Because they are a defence against sinâ— 7. Because necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the Spirit of God 8. By debt obligation 9. By command of God 1 Thes 4. 3. Rom. 12. 2. 10. By way of comfort to our selves 11. Because God is glorified by them 12. Because others are benefited thereby 13. Because godlinesse inherent is the end of our faith and justification The Law to a godly man is a delight not a burden The godly are under the desert of the curse but not the actuall condemnation of the Law The Law in the restraining power thereof was not made for the righteous but unrighteous 1. The true worship of God cannot be diseerned from false but by the Law 2. The depth of sin cannot be discovered without it Who meant by Gentiles How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law How said to do the things of the Law by nature The distinction of Morall and Theologicall good rejected What is here meant by Nature A two-fold writing of the Law in mens hearts and which here meant The law written in mens hearts two waies Rom. 4. 15. The Law of Nature consists in those common notions which are ingraffed in all mens hearts Some fragments onely of this Law left in us Those common notions in which this law consists are in us by nature Foure bounds of the law of Nature The obligation of the law of Nature is from God The obligation of the law of nature is perpetual and immutable The light of Nature is a remnant of Gods image 1. The light of Nature usefull and necessary for the making of wholsome lawes in Common-wealths 2. It instigateth to good duties towards God and man 3. It makes men inexcusable The light of Nature as corrupted by sin is an enemy to God and goodnes The light of Nature obscured three wayes The light of Nature inform'd by Gods Word an excellent help The light of Nature as it is a relict of Gods image is necessary in religious and morall things and that two wayes Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none do crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different wayes The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eyes 2. Because it 's prone to appoint mediatours between
God and us 3. Because it performes all duties by way of compensation merit That there is a God may be known by the light of Nature The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The Patriarchs did not offer sacrifices by the light of Nature but God revealed his will to Adam to be so worshipped Originall sin can onely be truly knowne by Scripture-light Matth. 17. 12. expounded Communion of all things no precept of Nature and the Apostles practise of it was only occasionall not binding to posterity God is more off ended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens There is in man a natural power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance Man by the power of nature wholly unable to performe good actions 1. Because our natures are full of sin and corruption 2. Because grace and conversion are the work of God 3. Because glory is to be given to God onely not to our selves Nature of it self cannot dispose for justification or sanctification and the reasons why There are and may be some preparatory and antecedaneous works upon the heart before justification or sanctification Determination to one kind of acts takes not away liberty A threefold liberty Determination to sinne takes not away that delight in sinne which man is inevitably carried out unto Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given unto it The outward act of a commandement may be preformed by the power of Nature Whatsoever meere naturall men doe is sin before God because 1. The act wants faith the person reconciliation with God 2. It proceeds not from a regenerate nature 3. 'T is not done in reference to Gods glory 4 There is no promise annexed to any act that wants faith There is in mans nature a passive capacity of grace which is not in stones and beasts To presse a duty and yet to acknowledge Gods grace or gift to do it is no contradiction Mans inability to observe Gods precepts maketh not voâ—d the nature of the precepts because this in ability proceeded from mans owne fault A thing said to be impossible three waies Gods commands though they be not a measure of our power may serve to convince humble c. Necessity of sinning hinders not the delight and willingnesse man hath in sin and consequently God may reprove him for his transgressions * Cap. 5. l. 3. Ethic. ad Nicom Though God works all our good in us yet exhortations are the instrument wherby he works it How conversion and repentance may be said to be our acts Gods working upon the heart of a sinner for conversion excludes not mans working Though wicked men cannot but sinne in praying and hearing yet they are bound to these duties God doth not bind himself to this way * Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi stupiditas ut major in infantos cadere non postit The tree of knowledge why so called God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heaâ—â— did give a positive law 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor Aug. The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adams posterity Adam by eating the forbidden fruit became mortall and in the state of death not naturall onely but spirituall and eternall also Adam before his sin was immortall A thing may be said to be immortall foure wayes The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Image and likenesse signifie one and the same thing An Image consists in likenesse to another pattern after which it is made A Four-fold image The image of God in Adam consisted in the severall perfections and qualifications in his soul 1. In his Understanding was exact knowledge of divine and naturall things 2. His Will was wonderfully good and furnished with many habits of goodnesse 3. In his Affections regularity and subjection 2. The image of God consisted in a freedome from all misery and danger 3. It consisted in that dominion and soveraignty Adam had over the creatures That righteousnesse and holiness fixed in Adam was 1. Originall 2. Universall 3. Harmonious 4. A perfection due unto him upon supposition of the end wherunto God made him Righteousness was a perfection sutable and connaturall to Adam Adam had power to beleeve so farre as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject Repentance as it flowes from a regenerate nature reductively the image of God Gods image not fully repaired in us in this life Doctr. The covenant with Adam before the fall more obscurely laid down then the covenant off grace after the fall That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant appeares 1. From evil threatned and good promised 2. Because his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall God enters into Covenant with man by way of condescension makes promises unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him God deales with man by way of covenant not of power 1. To indeare himself unto him 2. To incite man to more obedience 3. To make this obedience more willing and free The Covenant God made with Adam was of works not of faith God entring into Covenant with Adam must be looked upon as one already pleased with him not as a reconciled Father through Christ Gods Covenant did suppose a power and possibility in Adam to keep it 1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered as did flow from him as aliving creature endued with a rational soul 2 The principle and habit of righteousnesse was naturall to Adam but help from God to persevere supernaturall Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation but of conservation in righteousnesse The obedience of Angels may be said to be imperfect negatively not privatively Christs incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency in respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace The imputation of Christs righteousness doth not inferre that therefore we are more
contrary and therefore for God to deal with us in grace is more then in love for Adam if he had continued righteous he had been partaker of life this had been the gift of God but not by the grace of God as it is strictly taken for Adam was not in a contrary condition to life I will not trouble you with Pareus his apprehension that thinketh Adams righteousnesse could not be called grace therefore reproveth Bellarmine for his title De gratia primi hominis neither will he acknowledge those habits of holinesse in Christ to be called grace because there was not a contrary disposition in his nature to it as it is in ours And this also Cameron presseth that besides the indebitum which grace implyeth in every subject there is also a demeritum of the contrary Thus then justification is of grace because thy holinesse doth not only not deserve this but the clean contrary Now what a cordiall may this be to the broken heart exercised with its sinnes How may the sick say There I finde health the poore say There I finde riches And as for the Papists who say they set up grace and they acknowledge grace yet first it must be set down in what sense we take grace It is not every man that talketh of grace doth therefore set up Scripture-grace Who knoweth not that the Pelagians set up grace They determined that whosoever did not a knowledge grace necessary to every good act all the day long let him be an anathema and this faire colour did deceive the Eastern Churches that they did acquit him But Austine and others observed that he did use the word grace to decline envie gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendam invidiam even as the Papists do at this time therefore if they say Thy patience is grace Thy hope is grace and therefore by grace thou art saved say This is not the Gospel-grace the Scripture-grace by which sins are pardoned and we saved 2. It opposeth Christ in his fulnesse It makes an halfe-Christ Thus the false Apostles made Christ void and fell off from him Neither will this serve to say that the Apostle speakes of the ceremoniall law for as we told you though the differences about the Jewish ceremonies were the occasion of those divisions in the primitive times yet the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis even to all works whatsoever and therefore excludes Abrahams and Davids works from justification Now Christ would be no Christ if workes were our righteousnesse because the righteousnesse by the faith of Christ is opposed to Pauls own righteousnesse and this is called the righteousnesse of God Yea this is said to be made righteousnesse unto us and he is called the Lord our righteousnesse and howsoever Bellarmine would understand these phrases causally as when God is called the Lord our salvation yet we shall shew you it cannot be so therefore if thy works justifie thee what needs a Christ Can thy graces be a Christ 3. It destroyeth the true doctrine of Justification I shall not lanch into this Ocean at this time only consider how the Scripture speaks of it as not infusing what is perfect but forgiving what is imperfect as in David Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin I shall not at this time dispute whether there be two parts of Justification one positive in respect of the term to which called Imputation of Christs righteousnesse the other negative in respect of the term from which Not accounting sin This later I only presse Therefore What is it to be justified Not to have holinesse accepted of us but our sins remitted Justitia nostra est indulgentia tua Domine Now what a comfortable plea is this for an humbled soul O Lord it is not the question what good I have but what evil thou wilt forget It is not to finde righteous works in me but to passe by the unrighteousnesse in me What can satisfie thy soul if this will not do Is not this as I told you with Chrysostome to stand upon a spring rising higher and higher 4. It quite overthroweth justifying faith for when Christ and grace is overthrowne this also must fall to the ground There are these three main concurrent causes to our justification The grace of God as the efficient Christ as the meritorious and faith as the instrumentall and although one of these causes be more excellent then the other the efficient then the instrumentall yet all are equally necessary to that effect of justification That faith doth instrumentally justifie I here take it for granted As for the Antinomian who holdeth it before faith and thinketh the argument from Infants will plainly prove it I shall shew the contrary in its due time onely this is enough that an instrumentall particle is attributed to it By faith in his bloud and By faith in his Name and justified By faith It is true it 's never said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for faith as if there were dignity or merit in it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now to set up works is to oppose faith as the Apostle argueth therefore faith as it is a work is to be opposed to it self as it 's an instrument justifying 5. It quite discourageth a broken-hearted sinner taking away peace with God the effect of justification and glorying in tribulations If you consider Chapt. 5. of Rom. you will finde that peace onely comes this way yea and to glory in tribulations for ver 1. being justified by faith we have peace with God Alas what patience what repentance what pains and religious duties can procure thee peace with God Can that which would damne save Can that which would work woe in thee comfort thee Vae etiam laudabili vitae erit saith Austin as you heard Woe to the most worthy life that is if it should be judged strictly by God And then mark the object of this peace Peace with God Take a Pharisee take a morall or a formall man he may have a great deale of peace because of his duties and good heart yet this is not a peace with God so also for glorying in tribulations how can this be If all a mans glory were for himselfe would not every affliction rather break him saying This is the fruit of my sinne 6. It brings men into themselves And this is very dangerous A man may not only exclude Christ from his soul by grosse sins but by self-confidences You are they which justifie your selves And so the Jewes they would not submit to their own righteousnesse see how afraid Paul is to be found in his own righteousnesse Beza puts an emphasis upon this word Found implying that Justice and the Law and so the wrath of God is pursuing and seeking after man Where is that man that offends God and transgresseth his Law Where is that man that doth not pray or heare as he should doe Now saith Paul I would not
be found in mine own righteousnesse And this made Luther say Take heed not only of thy sins but also of thy good duties Now if this were all the wine that the Antinomian would drink in Christs cellar if this were all the hony that he would have in Christs hive none would contradict it but we shall shew you the dangerous inferences they make from hence turning that which would be a rod into a serpent 7. It overthroweth the doctrine of imputation and reckoning righteousnesse to us which is spoken of Rom. 4. and in other places I know how this point is vexed divers wayes but this is enough for us If righteousnesse were in us and properly ours what need a righteousnesse be reckoned and imputed to us The Papist maketh imputative and putative and imaginary all one Who can say A lame man say they goeth right because he hath other mens shooes Who can say A deformed Thersites is a faire Absalom because of borrowed beauty But these are easily refuted by Scripture and we shall shew you Christs righteousnesse is as really ours as if it were inherent They differ not in reality but in the manner of being ours Now here the Antinomian and Papist agree in the inferences they make from this doctrine If Christs righteousnesse be ours then there is no sin in us seen by God then we are as righteous as Christ argueth the Antinomian and this absurdity the Papists would put on us 8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties For how must that man be needs tossed up and down which hath no other ground of peace then the works of grace How is the humble heart soon made proud how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly Now you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and feares and James 1. it is made the canker-worm that devoureth all our duties Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that doe oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons as Be not afraid but beleeve so Why doubted ye the word signifieth to be in bivio that a man cannot tell which wayes to take to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up and down as meteors in the aire Now how can a man be bold by any thing that is his By faith we have confidence and boldnesse faith is confidence and faith works confidence but faith whose object is Christ not any thing of ours it 's made the first word also we can speak when we are made sons to cry Abba Father 9. A man may as lawfully joyne Saints or Angels in his mediation with Christ as graces Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious but because it joyneth Christ and others together in that great work Dost not thou the like when thou joynest thy love and grace with Christs obedience The Papist saith Let such and such an holy Saint save me and thou sayest Let my holy love let my holy repentance save me What advantage then hast thou if thou cryest down Saints and then makest thy self one in a Popish way Could therefore thy graces speak they would say as the Angel to John that would worship him Worship thou God worship thou Christ put thy trust in Christ he hath only born our sins so as to take them away and therefore as grosse Idolatry makes the works of God a god so doth more subtle Idolatry make the works of Christ a Christ 10. It overthroweth the grace of hope When faith is destroyed then also hope is This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian now if it be placed in Christ and the Promises it is as firme as faith therefore saith the Apostle of hope Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed but if it were an hope in our selves how often should we be confounded That is good of Austine Noli sperare de te sed de Deo tuo nam si speras de te anima tua conturbatur ad te quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te Do not hope in thy self but God for if so thy soul will never finde ground for security It 's an ignorant distinction among Papists that they may have a certainty of hope but not of faith in matters of salvation whereas they have both the like certainty and differ onely thus faith doth for the present receive the things promised and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties till it come to enjoy them Now to have such an hope as the Papists define Partly coming from Gods grace and partly from our merits Partim è gratia Dei and partim à meritis nostris proveniens must needs be destructive 11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification If you have not meat or drink but by God shall you have pardon of sin without him Abraham beleeved and gave God glory We are apt to account beleeving no glory to God but could we mortifie our corruptions more and more could we exhaust and spend our selves yet this is no more to give glory to God then when we beleeve Now it is good to possesse Christians with this principle To beleeve in Christ is to give glory to Christ we naturally would think to go far on pilgrimages to macerate our bodies were likelier wayes for our Salvation but this would be mans glory more then Gods glory Therefore how did that wretched Monk dying blasphemously say Redde mihi aeternam vitam quam debes Pay me eternall life which thou owest 12. It maketh sin and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation then Christ for salvation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. makes the opposition and sheweth that the gift is far above the transgression Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them there is not more in them to damne then in Christ to save Why should sin be an heavie sin a great sin and Christ not also a wonderfull saving Christ When we say The guilt of sin is infinite that is onely infinite objectivè but now Christs merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them and therefore as sin is exceeding sinfull so let Christ be an exceeding Christ and grace exceeding grace 13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification which declareth it to be inchoate and imperfect that our faith hath much unbelief in it our best gold much drosse our wine much water It is true both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this errour that because sin is covered therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinkle but they doe it upon different grounds whereas Paul Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying who are to pray thus O Lord joyn my obedience with all the suffrings of Christ
à bonis and that of another man who said he got more good by his sins then his graces But these speeches must be soundly understood We also love that of Austin All the Commands are accounted as if thou hadst done them when what is not done is forgiven Omnia mandata tua facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur 3. That is the incommodious yea and erroneous passages in Antinomian Authors were used for some reasons hereafter to be mentioned it were the more tolerable but that seems not to be There is more poison then can be concocted in them But if this were their ground of many unsavory assertions among them meerly their want of clear judgement to expresse themselves so that they think more orthodoxly then they write then they might be excused as being in a logomachy but with this proviso as Austine said of them that used the word fatum in a good sense Let them hold their opinion but correct their expressions Mentem teneant sed linguam corrigant Now that there may be injudiciousnesse in them as a cause in part of some of their erroneous passages will appeare in that they frequently speake contradictions This is a passage often but very dangerous that Let a man be a wicked man even as high as enmity it self can make a man yet while he is thus wicked and while he is no better his sins are pardoned and he justified Yet now in other passages Though a man be never so wicked yet if he come to Christ if he will take Christ his sinnes are pardoned now what a contradiction is here To be wicked and while he is wicked and while he is no better and yet to take Christ unlesse they hold that to take Christ or to come to him be no good thing at all But happily more of their contradictions hereafter Their injudiciousnesse and weaknesse doth also appear that when they have laid down such a truth as every godly Author hath they have so many words about it and doe so commend it as if they had found a Philosophers Stone or a Phenix as if the Reader should presently cry out and say Behold a greater then Solomon is here and yet it is but that which every Writer almost hath Again their injudiciousnesse doth appeare in that they minde only the promissory part of the Scripture and doe stand very little upon the mandatory part There are five or six places such as Christ came to save that which was lost and He hath laid on him the iniquities of us all c. these are over and over again But you shall seldome or never have these places urged Make your calling and election sure Work out your salvation with feare and trembling whereas all Scripture is given for our use Therefore 1. If weaknesse were all the ground of this controversie the danger were not so great Or 2ly If the end and aime they had were only to put men off from glorying in themselves to deny the concurrence of works to the act of justification If their desire were that men should not as Michal put an image in Davids roome so neither that Christians should put their works in Christs stead thus farre it might be excusable but then their books and their aimes cannot be reconciled Or If 3ly their maine drift was only to shew that good works follow a justified person and that they doe not antecede here would be no opposition but they deny the presence of them in time Or 4ly If the question were about preparatory works to justification and conversion though for my part I think there are such with those limitations that hereafter may be given to them this also were not so hainous Or fifthly If the dispute were onely upon the space of time between a profane mans profanenesse and his justification or the quantity of his sorrow these things were of another debate I do acknowledge that the Christian Religion was matter of offence to the Heathens in that they taught Though a man had never been so wicked yet if he did receive Christ he should be pardoned and how soon this may be done it is as God pleaseth but there is an alteration of the mans nature at that time also and Chrysostome indeed hath such a passage upon that Scripture The righteous shall live by faith Rom. 1. by faith onely a man hath remission of sins Now saith he this is a Paradox to humane reason that he who was an adulterer a murderer should presently be accounted righteous if he doe beleeve in Christ but this differs from the Antinomian assertion as much as heaven from hell So it 's related in Ecclesiasticall history of Constantine the Great that when he had killed many of his kindred yea and was counselled also to murder his own son repenting of these hainous crimes askt Sopater the Philosopher who succeeded Plotinus in teaching him Whether there could be any expiation for those sins The Philosopher said No afterwards he asked the Christian Bishops and they said I if he would beleeve in Christ This was feigned to make our Religion odious Or sixthly If it were to shew that there cannot be assurance before justification or that to relye upon Christ for pardon it is not necessary I should know whether I have truly repented or no This were also of another nature Therefore let us see what prejudiciall inferences they gather from this doctrine of Justification I know the proper place of handling this will come when we speak of that point but yet to give some antidote against their errours I will name some few as 1. Denying them to be a way to heaven Thus one expresly Sect. 4. on Christ being a way pag. 68. It is a received conceit among many persons that our obedience is a way to heaven though it be not causa yet it's via ad regnum Now this he labours to confute As for the speech it self Divines have it out of Bernard where among other encomium's of good works calling them Seeds of hope incentives of love signes of hidden Predestination and presages of future happinesse Spei quaedam seminaria charitatis incentiva occultae Praedestinationis indicia futurae felicitatis praesagia he addeth this The way to the Kingdome not the cause of reigning Via regni non causa regnandi Now it 's true that they are not a way in that sense that Christ is called a Way no more then the spirituall life of a Christian is life in that sense Christ stileth himself Life for here he understands it of himself as the causall and meritorious way Therefore there are Articles added to every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that which followeth makes it cleare No man can come to the Father but by me Object Oh but say they our works are our businesse and imployment not our way Sol. I answer when we call them a way it 's a metaphor and such a metaphor that the Scripture doth often
delight in Thus the wayes of God are said to be perfect Deut. 32. that is the works of the Lord and thus when it 's applyed to men if signifieth any religion doctrine manners actions or course of life 2 Pet. 2. 2 15 21. So that good works are both our way and imployment for an imployment and way in this sense are all one Thus Matth. 7. 17. Strait is the way that leadeth to life What is this but the work of grace and godlinesse for as for that exposition of the same author to understand it of Christ as if he were strait because men do account him so and therefore would adde works to him this is to compell Scripture to go two miles with us that would not go one and then by the opposition not wickedness but the devil himself would be the broad way 2. Denying the presence of them in the person justified And truly this is so dangerous that I know not how charity can excuse it It is such a naevus that ubera charitatis cannot tegere cover it For thus saith the Authour expresly speaking of that of Paul Therefore we conclude a man is justified without the deeds of the Law Here saith he the Apostle doth not only exclude works from having any power operative to concurre in the laying iniquities upon Christ but excludes all manner of works men can doe to be present and existent in persons when God doth justifie them And he instanceth of a generall pardon for theeves and traitors Now saith he one may take the pardon as well as another And so speaking upon that place He hath received gifts for men even for the rebellious he concludes that therefore though a man doe rebell actually from time to time and doe practise this rebellion yet though this person do thus the hatefulnesse thereof is laid upon Christ Is not this such a doctrine that must needs please an ungodly heart 3. In the denying of gaining any thing by them even any peace of heart or losing it by them Now this goeth contrary to Scripture Thus page 139. the Antinomian saith The businesse we are to do 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 self be committed And again 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 he 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 ye 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 Secondly 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 sinnes 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 gaoles as if now they were to smart for their former impiety 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 only one revealing which is the Spirit of God immediately the other receiving and that is faith Now in answering of this we 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 go by signes and marks 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 himself 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 soon 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 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 blinde 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
relates who called it folly to put confidence onely in Christs bloud We know no godly man satisfieth his own heart in any thing he doth much lesse can hee the will of God Wee cannot at the same time say Lord forgive me and Pay me what thou owest yet these good works though imperfect may be a great comfort unto us as the testimony of Gods eternall love to us Thus did Hezekiah 2 Kings 20. 3. Hezekiah is not there a proud Pharisee but a thankfull acknowledger of what is in him and some consider that this temptation might fall upon Hezekiah that when he had laboured to demolish all those superstitions and now became dangerously sick that hee had not done well therefore he comforts himselfe in his heart that hee did those things with not that he meant an absolute perfect heart but a sincere and comparatively perfect Hence it 's observed the word I have walked is in Hiphil I have made my selfe to walke implying the dulnesse and sluggishnesse and aversnesse he found in his heart to that duty so that prayer being as one calls it well Speculum animi the soules glasse you may gather what was a comfort to him Thus Paul 2 Tim. 4. I have fought a good fight c. It is true those words A crown of Righteousnesse The just Judge and Render doe not prove any merits in Paul as the Papists plead but yet Paul declareth this to keep up his heart against all discouragements We are not therefore to take comfort from them so as to rest in them but so as to praise God thereby It 's a good way nesciendo scire that so wee may praise God for them and sciendo nescire that so we may be humble in our selves 11. They are necessary in respect of God both in that hee is hereby pleased and also glorified When we say They are necessary in respect of God we understand it declaratively to set forth his glory for when God is said to be the end of all our actions and goodnesse he is not finis indigentiae an end that needs them but finis assimilationis an end that perfects those things in making them like him Now two waies they relate to God 1. God is hereby pleased so the Apostle Hebr. 13. Hee is well pleased So that as Leah though blear eyed yet when shee was fruitfull in children said Now my husband will love me so may Faith say Now God will love me when it abounds in the fruits of righteousnesse for our godly actions please God though imperfect onely the ground is because our persons were first reconciled with God Secondly they referre to God so as to glorifie him as his name is blasphemed when we walke in all wickednesse It 's true it 's Gods grace to account of this as his glory seeing it 's so defective 12. They are necessary in regard of others Matth. 5. 17. Let your light shine before men Hee doth not there encourage vain-glory but he propounds the true end of our visible holinesse for godlinesse being light it ought not to be under a bushell Hence both in the Tabernacle and Temple the light was placed in the midst and it ought to extend to others that hereby they may glorifie God in heaven As when we see an excellent picture we doe not praise that so much as the Artificer who made it Wee ought so to walk that men should glorifie God who hath made us so heavenly so humble so mortified Hierome said of Austin that he did diligere Christum habitantem in Augustino so ought we to walk that others may love Christ dwelling in us 1 Pet. 3. 1. it 's an exhortation to wives so to walke that their husbands may be won to the Lord. Thou prayest for thy husband in a carnall condition thou wouldst have him go heare such a Minister and such Sermons see that thy life also may convert him The Apostle by the phrase without the word meaneth the publique preaching so that the wives life may preach to him all the day and that same phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 1. the great price that every mans soule is worth 2. the delight that they ought to take in converting of others even the same that merchants doe in their trade 13. Holinesse and godlinesse inherent is the end of our faith and justification and that is the meaning of our Divines who say Charity or Love of God is the end of faith because God hath appointed this way of justification by faith till he hath brought us into eternall glory and there we have perfect inherent holinesse though even then the glory and honour of all that shall be given to Christ Now indeed it hath pleased God to take another way for our acceptation then shall be hereafter not but that God might if he had pleased have given us such a measure of grace inherent whereby we might have obtained eternall life being without sin and conformable to his will but this way hath pleased his wisdome that so Christ and Grace may be exalted and wee for our sins debased in our selves Therefore good is that of Anselme Terret me tota vita mea namapparet mihi aut peccatum aut tota sterilitas My whole life terrifieth me for I see nothing but sin or barrennesse Only this may make for the excellency of Sanctification that therefore is Christ and Grace and Justification and all that at last we may be made perfectly holy Now some Divines have gone further but I cannot goe along with them As 1. Those that doe give them causality and efficiencie of our justification and salvation And if they should use the word Efficiency in a large sense it might be true but dangerous but otherwise to take Efficient strictly they cannot for so was the covenant of works at first Adams obedience would not have meritoriously but efficiently procured his happinesse Hence by the Apostle faith is not included as works are rejected for they are rejected as efficients of our salvation but faith is included as the instrumentall and passive receiving of it 2. Some learned men have said Though good works doe not merit eternall life for that is wholly purchased by Christs death yet say they accidentall degrees of glory our godlinesse may obtaine but that is not safe for first it 's questioned by some whether there be such degrees at all or no but grant it yet even that must be of grace as well as others Lastly some hold our temporall mercies to come to us by a covenant of workes but not our spirituall this also is hard for we may have these good things either by Christ or else by the forbearance of God who doth not take the advantage against us for our sins I shall say no more of this then by answering a main doubt Object If good workes be still necessarily requisite why then is not the covenant of grace still a covenant of works not as at first in
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 that was occasionall and necessary therefore not to be a ground for perpetuall command for other Churches did it not as appeareth by the almes that were gathered nor was it laid necessarily upon all to sell what they had as appeareth by Paul's speech to Ananias Use 1. If God be so angry with those that abuse naturall light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospel light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifugae as Bats and Owles are In one Chapter God is said three times to deliver them up because they did not glorifie God according to Natures light how much more then according to the Gospels light Gravis est lux conscientiae said Seneca but gravior est lux Evangelii The light of the Ministery and Word must needs be more troublesome to thy sinfull wayes Use 2. Of Examination whether even among Christians may not be found men no better then Heathens Now such are 1. Ignorant people how few have any knowledge of God 2. Violent adherers to former Idololatricall courses taken up by fore-fathers There is this difference between an Idolater and a true Beleever The Beleever is like those creatures that you can make nothing lye on their backs unlesse it be fastened by some Scripture or reason but the Heathen is like the Camell that had a back for burdens on purpose so that any idolatry he would bear though it were not tyed on by arguments 3. Such as are inordinately distracted about the things of this world Matth. 6. After these things doe the Heathens seek Hast thou not much of an Heathen in thee 4. Such as rage at Christ and his reformation Psal 2. Why doe the Heathens rage LECTURE IX ROM 2. 14. For the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law WE have handled those things that concern the light and conduct of Nature now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature for herein are two extreme errours one of the Pelagian Papist and Arminian with others who lift up this power too high The enemies of grace lurk under the praises of nature Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory works upon the heart of a man holding that Christ immediately communicateth himselfe to grosse sinners abiding so and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ which all orthodox do yet they expresse it in an unsound sense comparing God unto a Physician that doth violently open the sick mans throat and poure down his physick whether he will or no whereas God though he doth convert fortiter yet he doth it also suaviter Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing we will lay down these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is not indeed a Scripture name but meerly ecclesiasticall and hath been so abused that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded but if we speak of the quid sit and not the quid possit the being of it and not the working of it we must necessarily acknowledge it The neerest expression to the word Free-will is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over his own will but generally the Scripture useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as we intend There is in all men naturally that power whereby through the help of Reason he chooseth this and refuseth another-thing only this must not be extended to the things of grace Now to say what this Free-will is is very hard Perkins following some Schoole-men maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will others a third reall distinct power from them but it may probably be thought that it is nothing but the will in electing or refusing such things so that we call it the Will in those things it 's necessarily carried out to as to will what is good and not sin as sin and then Free-will when it 's carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it Even as in the Understanding while the Understanding doth consider first Principles it 's called Intellectus while Conclusions that are gathered from them it 's called Ratio Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us when they say we turn men into beasts for we hold the Understanding going before and the Will after and this is more then a meere spontaneous inclination in things naturall Therefore it is that we do not bid the fire burn or perswade an horse to goe because there is not Understanding or Will in these things as there is in a man 2. This which is left in us is not able to performe naturall actions without the generall help of God That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally must still be limited to his proper sphere to naturall and civill actions or some externally religious duties but even then we must acknowledge a generall help or assistance of God without which we could not doe any naturall thing so that place in the Acts In him we live and move and have our being by which we prove that God doth not onely give us the principles of being and moving but we move in him i. e. by him Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians that thought without the generall aide of God a man might move his finger or write and speak There have beem some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power o◠actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then mee◠preservation of our being no concourse or aide of God helping us in the action Thus Durand of old and one Dodo of late who hath written a Book onely to that purpose but the place abovesaid doth evidently convince it and we see that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning which could not be otherwise then by denying his actuall aide to the working of the fire For to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies were to make the miracle there where the Scripture doth not lay it If you aske then why this may not be called a speciall help of God as well as that whereby we are inabled to beleeve or repent I answer there is a great deal of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in regard of their positive nature as well
as to good 2. God doth this in the way of his Providence as a Creatour the other he doth in the way of Predestination as a Father in Christ 3. The other aide may be said to be due as our Divines speak of originall righteousnesse upon a supposition that a man is made a creature to do such actions yet not properly a debt but that for our sin we are deprived of it but this speciall help of grace cannot be called so 3. It is wholly unable to work any good thing All this while we have considered the power of man but as in the lower region and if you doe consider him in reference to good things so he hath no power or will or free-will at all but as Austin said before Luther it 's servum arbitrium a servant and inslaved will to sin onely Indeed we have not lost our understandings or our wills but to know or will that which is good is wholly lost Though we have not lost the will yet we have the rectitude in that will whereby we should encline to good And this may be proved from many Arguments 1. From all those places of Scripture which declare our estate to be full of sin and corruption and altogether wicked Now Doe men gather grapes of thornes or figs of thistles Hence the Father compareth us well to the ship in a tempest that is destitute of a Pilot we are dashed continually upon rocks though this speak of the negative onely not the positive corruption 2. All those places which speak of grace and conversion and regeneration as the work of God As for those places where we are said to repent and to turn unto God in time we shall cleare only these Texts prove that all the good things we do they are the works of the Lord not that God beleeveth or repenteth in us but he worketh those actions in us efficiently which we doe formally and vitally 3. All those places whereby glory and praise is to be given unto God onely and not unto our selves What hast thou thou hast not received We are to glory in nothing because no good thing is ours Therefore we bring forth good things as Sarahs dead womb brought forth a child it was not a child of nature but a child of the meere Promise thus are all our graces And indeed if we could either in whole or part work our own conversion we might thank God and our wils But how absurd would this be Lord I thank thee for the turning of my heart when I was willing to turn it 4. It cannot prepare or dispose it self for the grace of justification or sanctification As it cannot immediately work any good thing so neither can a naturall man dispose or prepare himself for the great works of grace There is no truth in such an assertion Let man do what he can naturally God will meet him graciously and the reasons are plain 1. Because no naturall thing is in it self an order or a disposition to a supernaturall thing for they differ in their whole kind and nature Hence it is that we never read of any Heathens that by the improvement of a naturall light had supernaturall vouchsafed unto them 2. Those places that speak of our totall corruption intensively onely evil and extensively all the thoughts of a man are evil and protensively continually do sufficiently declare that we cannot prepare our selves to meet God 3. If we could prepare or dispose our selves to grace then the greatest cause of glory would still be in a mans own self For Why doth Peter repent and not Judas Because may some say he disposed and set himself to repent and not Judas But still here is the Question Why did Peter set himself to repent and not Judas Here it must be ultimately resolved either into the grace of God or the will of man 4. All those similitudes that the Scripture useth do illustrate this thing We are not said to be blind or lame but dead in sin now did Lazarus prepare himself to rise So it 's called Regeneration Can a man dispose himself to have life I know these comparisons must not be extended too far yet the Scripture using such expressions to declare our utter inability we may well presse those breasts of the Scripture so farre and bring out no blood The parched earth doth not dispose it self for the rain nor doth the cold ice of it self thaw which is the Fathers Similie Yet fifthly We may hold truly some antecedaneous works upon the heart before those graces be bestowed on us This take to antidote against the Antinomian who speaks constantly of the soul taking Christ even while it 's a grievous polluted soul as if there were no polishing of this crooked timber and rough stone but even taken out of the quarry and so immediately put into the building Those in the Acts that were pricked in heart were yet bid to repent and so they cried out What shall we doe to be saved The sick feeleth his burden before he cometh for ease so that a grosse sinner is not immediately put out of his vile wayes into Christ onely these limitations you must take 1. That all these things sight of sin trembling for fear confused desires they are the works of Gods grace moving us they do not come from our own naturall strength 2. These are not absolutely necessary in every one We know how Matthew and Lydia did follow Christ and God saith he was found of some that did not seek him Paul was in a most cursed indisposition when the Lord called him but generally God takes this way 3. These are not necessary antecedents so as the grace of conversion doth necessarily follow Wee reade of Cain and Judas troubled for sin These are a wildernesse that a man may dye in and never goe into Canaan There may be throes and pangs when yet no childe but wind is to be delivered Hence a people that have been civill have not been called but Publicans and Harlots The object of election is for the most part few for number infirme for power and sinfull for conversation though in the godly these are needles that will draw in the threed yet this state must not be called a third middle estate between regenerate and unregenerate as some feigne Lastly none of these workings can be called so properly preparations or dispositions in themselves but onely intentionally in God Our Saviour looked on a young man and loved him and said hee was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven that is the life hee lived was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven yet this was no preparation in it selfe to it nay he may be further off as two high hills may be neer in the tops to one another but the bottomes some miles asunder And this is so great a matter that great sins are made by God a preparation to some mans conversion which yet of themselves they could never
be As a childe whose coat is a little dirty hath it not presently washed but when he falls wholly all over in the dirt this may be the cause of the washing of it so that they are preparations only so far as God intendeth them 6. All determination to one doth not take away that naturall liberty This will further cleere the truth for it may be thought strange that there should be this freedome of will in a man and yet thus determined to one sin onely whereas it 's plaine a determination to one kind of acts good or evill doth not take away liberty God can onely will that which is good and so the Angels and Saints confirmed in happinesse yet they doe this freely and so the Divels will that which is wicked onely It 's true some exclaime at such passages but that is onely because they are prepossessed with a false opinion about liberty for a determination to one may arise from perfection as well as naturall imperfection It is from Gods absolute perfection that hee is determined to will onely good and when Adam did will to sin against God it did not arise from the liberty of his will but his mutability There is a naturall necessity such which determineth a thing to one and that is imperfection but a necessity of immutability in that which is good is a glorious perfection The Learned speak of a three-fold liberty 1. From misery such as the Saints shall have in heaven 2. From sin to which is opposed that freedome to righteousnesse of which our Saviour speaketh Then are yee free indeed when the Son hath made you free and of which Austine Tunc est liberum quando liberatum 3. From naturall necessity and thus also man though hee be necessarily carried on to sin yet it is not by a naturall necessity as beasts are but there is Reason and Will in him when he doth thus transgresse onely you must take notice that this determination of our Will onely to sin is the losse of that perfection we had in Adam and doth not arise from the primaeve constitution of the will but by Adams fall and so is meerly accidentall to it 7. Nor doth it take away that willingnesse or delight in sin which we are inevitably carried out unto For now if man were carried out to sin against his will and his delight then there might be some shew of pleading for him but it is not so he sinneth as willingly and as electively in respect of his corrupt heart as if there were no necessity brought upon him Therefore that is good of Bernards The necessity takes not away the willingnesse of it nor the willingnesse of it the necessity It 's both an hand-maid and so free and which is to be wondered eoque magis ancilla quò magis libera Hence therefore no wicked or ungodly man can have any excuse for himselfe to say the fates or necessity drove him for besides that by his fault he hath cast himselfe into this necessity and so is as if a man in debt who was once able to pay but by his wilfull prodigall courses hath spent all should think to be excused because he cannot pay Besides I say this just and full answer this also is to be said that no man sins constrainedly but every one is carried on with that delight to sin as if he were independent upon any providence or predefinitive permissive decrees of God or any such corrupt necessity within him Hereby he pitieth not himselfe hee seeth not his undone estate nihil miserius misero non miserante scipsum Hence it is that a mans whole damnation is to be ascribed to himselfe Wee ourselves have destroyed our owne soules wee cannot cast it upon Gods decrees And this is necessarily to be urged because of that naturall corruption in us with Adam to cast our sinne upon God 8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it and yet not give the totall efficacy unto it This is a maine particular to consider for Pelagius and Arminius and Papists all doe acknowledge grace Pelagius it 's noted of him that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion and held grace in every one of them Hee did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam as you heard before yea by this meanes hee deceived all the Easterne Churches and they acquitted him when he said thus If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act wee doe let him be an anathema So Papists and Arminians they all acknowledge grace but not grace enough Gratia non est gratia nisi sit omni modo gratuita As for example First they acknowledge grace to be onely as an universall help which must be made effectuall by the particular will of man so that grace is efficacious with them not by any inward vertue of it self antecedaneous to and independent upon the Will but eventually only because the will doth yeeld and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol homo generant hominem one as the universall cause the other as the particular cause Thus grace and free-will produce a good action grace as the generall cause and free-will as the particular but how derogatory is this to grace how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace For If I should aske Who is the father of such a man it would be very hard to say The Sun in the firmament so it would be as absurd to say Grace regenerated and converted this man Again they make grace a partiall cause only so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to work this or that good thing and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the work of conversion but this supposeth us not dead in sinne 9. Men may naturally performe the outward act of a commandement Now though we be thus corrupt yet for all that men by nature may doe that outward act which is commanded by God or abstaine from the matter prohibited Thus Alexander abstained from the Virgins hee took captives which is so much related in stories and many other famous instances of the Heathens though some indeed think they had a speciall helpe and aide from God to doe that but here the Apostle in the Text is cleare They doe by nature the things of the law Some doe not like that dictinction They may doe the substance of the work but not the manner of a good worke because they think the substance doth comprehend that indeed which makes a good work howsoever they agree that the externall act may be done Thus Ahab hee externally humbled himselfe and some think that Uriah which Esay calls The faithfull witnesse he took to him to be the same with him that brought in the Altar of Damascus so that though he was an idolater and an ungodly man yet hee was reputed a faithfull man in his word And certainly this is something to make many men inexcusable They may
forbeare those acts of grosse impiety which they doe supposing they have not customarily or by the just judgement of God throwne themselves into the power of such sins not that this will helpe to save them onely their punishment will be lesse Thus Fabricius and Camillus saith Austin will be lesse punished then Verres or Cataline not because these were holy but because they were lesse wicked minora vitia virtutes vocamus I know it 's a question Whether a godly man can doe more good then he doth or lesse evill then he doth but this may be handled in the controversall part we speak now of a wicked man who can doe no good at all unlesse in the externall act Yet 10. All that they doe is a sin before God This is an antidote to the former Whatsoever they have done though for the matter glorious yet they were but glorious sins for 1. They could not come from faith or one reconciled with God and the person must be first accepted before the action Heb. 11. Without faith it 's impossible to please God 2. It could not come from a regenerate nature and therefore the tree not being good the fruit was also bad It 's not in Divinity as in Morall Philosophy where justa justè agendo fimus justi but we have the esse or being first and then the operari It 's a question worth the disputing Whether the grace of God works the act of beleeving and other graces in us first and then by them we receive the habits The Papists and Arminians and some others go that way but it is not consonant to Scripture as may be shewed hereafter 3. They could not be good if you regard the end They could do nothing for the glory of God This made Theophylact say Wee could not instance in one good Heatken for that which they did was for their vain-glory carnalis cupiditas non aliâ fauatur one divell did but cast out another and if they did intend some particular good end as to relieve the miserable to help the commonwealth this was not enough for the ultimate and chief end ought to be intended by them Lastly There is no promise of God made to any thing a man doth that hath not faith Ahab indeed and Nebuchadnezzar had temporall rewards but in what sense I shall shew in answering the Objections Use To bewaile the wofull condition of man by nature How is every bird in the aire and beast in the field in a better naturall condition then they are This is worse then to be blind to be lame for our soules are all blind lame deafe yea and dead in sin What a sad thing is it to be all the day and yeare long damning our soules If we eat or drink we sin if we buy or sell we sin And consider that sin is the greatest evill and that onely which God loaths and abhorres Let all thou doest therefore terrifie thee and make thee to tremble let this make thee cry for grace as the poore blind and lame did that they might be healed And because you doe not feele this or are unwilling to be heard therefore you are the more miserable Nolunt phrenetici ligari lethargici excitari LECTURE X. ROM 2. 14. For if the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law c. WE have already positively and plainly so farre as wee conceived necessary declared and proved the truth about the power and ability of a man by Nature to doe that which is good now it remaineth we should antidote against those Objections that doe militate against this truth and that indeed with much shew of reason for never have men been more witty then when they have undertaken to be the patrons of Nature But Austin well called it vitreum acumen the more it glitters the easier it 's broken The Heathens are very obstinate in propugning mans power Onely sluggards need Gods help Ignavis opus est auxilio divino saith Seneca the Tragedian and so the other Seneca It is the gist of the gods that we live but our own doing that we live well Deorum quidem munus esse quòd vivimus nostrum verò quòd bene sancteque vivimus and that of Tully is very arrogant lib. 3. de nat deorum Quia sibi quisque virtutem acquirit neminem è sapientibus unquam de ea gratias Deo egisse and saith he Wee are praised for our vertue which could not be if it were the gift of God and not of our selves But how different are the holy men in the Scripture from these wise men of the world who when they have been enabled by God to doe any good thing have not taken the glory of it to themselves And as Joab did about Rabbah when he had taken it sent to David to come and take all the glory so doe they say Not I but the grace of God 1 Corinth 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood which was present with mee not which did work with mee Finst therefore they say If so be we are not able to doe any thing towards our salvation this is to turn men into stockes and stones or beasts and so no difference between them and us But we say Although those similitudes the Scripture holds forth doe prove our inability for that which is good yet they must not be made alike in all things It 's true to convert men is to make children unto Abraham out of stones yet we must not think that is therefore an universall likenesse between men and stones For first consider this vast dissimilitude In stones and beasts there is no passive capacity of grace but in man there is We say there is a power for grace in a mans nature and the Papists say there is a power only they say it 's an active power though remote we say only a passive There is a power to be converted to God which is not in stones or beasts they say there is a power to convert or turn to God here is a great difference Besides wee 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 hee hath not lost the faculties themselves therefore though he be theologically dead yet hee 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 wee may grant those objections that if a man had not this free-will
Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who artthou 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 hee 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 hee hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free hee might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if hee 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 with all 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 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 enabled 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 wee will say as Austine to the Hereticks Illigarriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly wee 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 wee come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sinne 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 sinne should be made ours then the sinnes of our immediate parents are made ours I know Peter Martyr and he quoteth Bucer is of a minde that the sinnes of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity and Austin inclineth much to that way but this may serve to confute it that the Apostle Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one mans disobedience Now if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was why should the accusation be still laid upon him But of this more hereafter 6. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eat of the forbidden fruit We need not run to the answer of some that this was spoken onely by way of threatning and not positively as that sentence upon the Ninivites for these conclude therefore Adam died not because of his repentance but Adam did not immediately repent and when he did yet for all that he died Others reade it thus In the day thou eatest thereof and then make the words absolute that follow Thou shalt die as if God had said There is no day excepted from thy death when thou shalt eate But the common answer is best which takes to die for to be in the state of death and therefore Symmachus his translation is commended which hath Thou shalt be mortall so that hereby is implyed a condition and a change of Adams state as soon as he should eate this forbidden fruit And by death we are not onely to meane that of the actuall dissolution of soule and body but all diseases and paines that are the harbingers of it So that hereby Christians are to be raised higher to be more Eagle-eyed then Philosophers They spake of death and diseases as tributes to be paid they complained of Nature as a step-mother but they were not able to see sin the cause of this Yea in this threatning we are to understand spirituall death and eternall also Indeed it 's made a question Whether if Adam had continued be should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in Paradise but that his death would have been more then temporall appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed the things that concern heaven and hell or the resurrection are not so frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New yet there are sufficient places to convince that the Promises and threatnings in the Old Testament were not onely temporall as some doe most erroneously maintain 7. Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit And this indeed is a very famous question but I shall not be large in it The orthodox they hold that immortality was a priviledge of innocency and that Adams body then onely became mortall when
sweet correspondency one with the other there was no rebellion or fight between the inferiour appetite and the understanding Therefore some learned men say This righteousnesse is not to be conceived as an aggregation of severall habits but as an inward rectitude of all faculties Even as the exact temperament of the body is not from any superadded habit but from the naturall constitution of the parts 4. This righteousnesse and holinesse it was a perfection due to Adam supposing the end to which God made him If God required obedience of Adam to keep the law and happinesse thereupon it was due not by way of merit but condecency to Gods goodnesse to furnish him with abilities to performe it as the soul of Adam was a due to him supposing the end for which God made him Indeed now it 's of grace to us and in a far different consideration made ours because we lost it Lastly this was to be a propagated righteousnesse for as it is to be proved hereafter God did all this in a way of covenant with Adam as a publike person And howsoever every thing that Adam did personally was not made ours we did not eate in his eating nor drink in his drinking we did not dresse the garden in his dressing of it yet that which he did federally as one in convenant with God that is made ours so his sin and misery is made ours then his righteousnesse and happinesse As it is now By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin so then it would have been by one man righteousnesse and life by righteousnesse Questions to be made 1. Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam or no Howsoever some have thought this a meere contention of words and therefore if they were well explained there would be no great difference yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errours for grant this righteousnesse to be supernaturall to Adam as it is to us then 1. it will follow That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason are from the constitution of our nature and so no more sin then hunger and thirst is 2. That free-will is still in us and that we have lost nothing but that which is meerly superadded to us Or they compare this righteousnesse Adam had sometimes to an Antidote which preserves against the deadly effect of poyson sometimes to a bridle that rules the horse so that they suppose mans nature would of it self rebell but onely this was given to Adam to check it sometimes to Sampsons haire whereby he had supernaturall strength but when that was cut off he had onely naturall So that by this doctrine man now fallen should be weaker then he was but not corrupted Therefore we must necessarily conclude that this righteousnesse was naturall to him not indeed flowing from the principles of nature for so it was of God but it was a perfection sutable or connaturall to him it was not above him as it is now in us As a blind man that was made to see though the manner was supernaturall yet to see was a naturall perfection 2. Whether justifying faith was then in Adam Or Whether faith 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 image of God Answ So farre 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 farre it is reductively the image of God 3. Whether this shall be restored to us in this life again Howsoever 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 farre 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 died being restored again 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 O wretched man that I am c. Basil compareth Paul to a man thrown off his horse and dragg'd after him and he cryeth out for help so is Paul thrown down by his corruptions and dragg'd 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 evil 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 feel the power of Christ As thy
out of the Scripture 2. The second Reason of Calvin is that the obedience of the Angels was imperfect or not so perfect but that it needed pardon which he groundeth upon Job 4. 18. His Angels he charged with folly This may be answered thus That the obedience of the Angels may be said imperfect negatively or comparative in respect of God it is not answerable to his greatnesse but yet it is not imperfect privatively as if it did want any perfection due to it and so was to be pardoned Therefore Eliphaz his expression tends onely to this to shew the Greatnesse and Majestie of God and that even Angels themselves are but darknesse to his glory If you aske then What shall be thought of the place Colos 1. 20 I answer This place compared with Ephes 1. 10. That he might gather together in one all things in Christ may well be laid together for they speak the same thing In the Epistle to the Colossians it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile and that to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word some expound to be as much as to bring to its first beginning and so it 's explained by them that all things have suffered a defect from the beginning and by Christ are to be restored to their former state Others expound it of reducing all to one head which is Christ Others make it a metaphor from those things which are largely set down and then briefly capitulated and summed up again thus say they all that was prefigured by the sacrifices is fulfilled in Christ but we take the word in this sense as it doth imply to gather together those things which were scattered and divided and so it doth excellently describe the ruine and confusion that is brought upon all by sin But then here is the difficulty again how the Angels can be said to be gathered seeing they were never divided To this some answer that the All things here spoken in the text are to be limited to men onely so that the things in heaven shall be the spirits of godly men already translated thither and the things in earth those men that are living But suppose it be extended to Angels yet will not this inferre their need of mediation by Christ but onely some benefit to redound unto them by Christ and that is certain for first by Christ they have a knowledge of the mysteries of our salvation as appeareth Ephes 3. 10. and secondly hereby they have joy in the conversion of a sinner and lastly Angels become hereby reconciled with man and this seemeth to be the most proper and immediate sense of the place So that I cannot see any ground for that assertion which saith Because there is no proportion between a creature and the Creatour therefore there must be a Mediatour And if this hold true of the Angels then it will also hold about Adam for there being no offence or breach made there needed no Mediatour to interpose It 's hard to say Christ would have been incarnated if Adam had not sinned All those who hold the necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain that though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been incarnated Now when the Scripture nameth this to be the principall end of Christs coming into the world to save that which is lost unlesse this had been we cannot suppose Christs coming into the flesh Whether indeed Christ was not the first object in Gods decree and predestination and then afterwards men and then other things is a far different question from this As for Colos 1. which seemeth to speak of Christ as head of the Church that he might have preheminency in all things this doth not prove his incarnation though no fall of Adam but rather supposeth it 3. Whether the tree of life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam or no For this also is affirmed by some that the tree of life was a sacrament given to Adam which did represent Christ from whom Adam was to receive his life But upon the former grounds I doe deny the tree of life to have any such sacramentall signification It is true I grant it to be a sacrament for there is no good reason to the contrary but that sacraments may be in the state of innocency onely they did not signifie Christ Why it was called a tree of life is not the same way determined by all some think because it had a speciall quality and efficacy with it to preserve Adam immortall for although he was so made yet there were meanes appointed by God to preserve this state But we will not conclude on this only we say It was a sacrament not only to admonish Adam of his life received from God but also of that happy life which upon his obedience he was alwayes to enjoy Hence Revel 2. 7. happinesse is called eating of the tree of life which is in the midst of Paradise We do not in this exclude Adam from depending upon God for all things or acknowledging him the sole authour of all his blisse but onely there was not then that way of administration of good to us as is now by Christ to man plunged into sin And this must be said that we must not curiously start questions about that state in innocency for the Scripture having related that there was such a state once doth not tell us what would have been upon supposition of his obedience 4. And so we may answer that demand Whether there was any revelation unto Adam of a Christ Now what might be done we cannot say but there is no solid ground to assert it for howsoever the Apostle indeed makes a mysterious application of that speech of Adam unto Christ and his Church to set forth their immediate union yet it doth not follow that Adam did then know any such mysterie Indeed Zanchy saith that Christ did in an humane shape appear and put Adam and Eve together in that conjugall band but we cannot affirme this from Scripture And by this also it doth appeare that the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ had this consideration added unto it as it was given to the Jewes afterward and in that respect it was to be abolished That opinion is very much forced which makes those words of Gods blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath day Gen. 1. to be by way of anticipation and therefore would deny the command of the Sabbath to be given to Adam saying there was onely one positive law which was that of not eating the forbidden fruit that was delivered unto Adam Now though this be false yet that consideration of the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ was not then in the state of the innocency 5. Another main question is Whether this state of reparation be more excellent then that in innocency Now here we cannot say one is absolutely better then the other only in some respects one is excelled by the
received among the Jews about the sense of the Commandments and that was The Law did onely reach to the outward man did only forbid outward acts and that there was no sin before God in our hearts though we delighted in and purposed the outward acts if they were not outwardly committed And this we may gather by Paul that all the while he was bewitched with Pharisaicall principles he did not understand inward lust to be sin and as famous as it is false is that exposition brought by the Learned of Kimchy upon that Psalm 66. 18. If I regard iniquity in my heart he will not hear he makes this strange meaning of it If I regard iniquity onely in my heart so that it break not forth into outward act the Lord will not hear that is hear so as to impute it or account it a sin And thus it is observed of Josephus that he derideth Polybius the noble historian because he attributed the death of Antiochus to sacriledge onely in his purpose and will which he thought could not be that a man having a purpose onely to sin should be punished by God for it But the Heathens did herein exceed the Pharisees fecit quisque quantum voluit its Seneca's saying And indeed it s no wonder if the Pharisees did thus corrupt Scripture for its a doctrine we all naturally incline unto not to take notice or ever be humbled for heart sins if so be they break not out into acts Oh what an hell may thy heart be when thy outward man is not defiled Good is that passage 2 Chron 22. 26. Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart Certainly as God who is a spirit doth most love spirit-graces so he doth most abhor spirit-spirit-sins The Schools do well observe that outward sins are majoris infamiae of greater reproach but inward heart-sins are majois reatûs of greater guilt as we see in the devils And from this corruption in our nature ariseth that poisonous principle in Popery which is also in all formall Protestants That the commands of God do onely forbid the voluntary omission of outward acts whereas our Saviours explication will finde every man to be a murderer an adulterer c. Now our Saviours explications of the Law go upon those grounds which are observed by all sound Divines viz. 1. That the Law is spirituall and for bids not onely the fruit and branches of sin but even the root it self and fountain And 2. that wheresoever any sin is forbidden and in what latitude soever the contrary good things are commanded and in that proportionable latitude This therefore considered may make every man tremble and be afraid of his own heart and with him to cry out Gehenna sum Domine I am a very hell it self Let us not therefore be afraid of preaching the Law as we see Christ here doth for this is the great engine to beat bown the formality and Pharisaisme that is in people And thus I come to raise the Doctrine which is that The Law of God is such a perfect rule of life that Christ added no new precept or duty unto it But even as the Prophets before did onely explicate the Law when they pressed morall duties so also Christ and the Apostles when they urge men unto holy duties they are the same commanded heretofore I do not speak of Sacraments or the outward positive worship which is otherwise then was in the Old-Testament they had circumcision and we have Baptisme but of the Morall duties required of us It is true in the Old-Testament many things were expressed more grosly and carnally which the people for the most part understood carnally yet the duties then commanded were as spirituall as now There is onely a graduall difference in the manifestation of the duties no specificall difference of the duties themselves And that this may appeare the more to the dignity and excellency of the Law I will instance in particulars First The Law of God required the heart-worship and service That this may be understood take this for a generall rule which is not denied by any That when there are any Morall duties pressed in the Old-Testament the Prophets do it as explainers of the Law they do but unfold and draw out that Arras which was folded together before This being premised then consider those places in the Old-Testament that call for the heart Thus Pro. 3. 1 Let thine heart keep my commandements So Pro. 23. 26. My sonne give me thine heart So that all the duties then performed which were without the heart and inward man were not regarded God required then heart-prayer and heart humiliation It s true the people for the most part understood all carnally and grosly thinking the outward duty commanded onely and that is no marvell for do not people even in these times of the Gospel look to the externall duty not examining whether they pray or humble themselves according as the Word speaks of such duties Thus David was very sensible of his heart-neglect when he prayed Unite my heart to feare thy Name and are not the people of God still under the same temptations They would pray they would humble themselves but oh how they want an heart That is so divided and distracted that if after any duty we should put that question to it as God did to Satan From whence commest thou it would returne Satans answer From compassing the earth 2. It preferred duties of Mortification and Sanctification before religious outward duties This you shall see frequently pressed and inculcated by the Prophets Isaiah 1. how doth God abhorre there all their solemne duties making them abominable even like carrion and all because they did not wash them and make them clean So David saith A broken and contrite heart it was more then any burnt offering now under the times of the Gospel This is an high duty and few reach unto it Doth not the Apostle reprove the Corinthians for desiring gifts rather then graces and abilities of parts rather then holinesse So that this is an excellent duty prescribed by Gods Law that to be able to mortifie our affections to have sanctified natures is more then to have Seraphicall knowledge and Cherubinicall affections in any duty Who then can be against the preaching of the Law when it is such an excellent and pure rule holding forth such precious holinesse 3. It required all our duies to be done 1. In faith for who can think that when God required in the first Table having him for their God that hereby was not commanded faith and trusting in him as a God in Covenant who would pardon sinne How could the Jewes love God or pray unto him acceptably if they had not faith in him Therefore the Law is to be considered most strictly as it containeth nothing but precepts of things to be done in which sense it is sometimes though seldom taken And 2. more largely as it had the Preface and Promises
it was said of old c. BEcause my purpose is to set forth the dignity of the Morall Law I shall therefore briefly demonstrate in this present Sermon the falshood of that opinion maintained by Papists Anabaptists and Socinians That Christ came to give us more exact precepts then Moses delivered to the Jewes and therefore that Christ was not here an Interpreter but a Reformer It cannot be denyed but this Sermon of our Saviours hath bred many thoughts of heart for because of these precepts here not rightly understood the Heathens took occasion to calumniate the Christian Religion as that which could not stand with a Common-wealth And the Ancient Fathers were much troubled in answer to their objections for when Julian and others did urge that seeing by Christs commands we might not resist evill but rather be prepared to receive more injuries therefore no Warre no Magistracy no places of Judicature were lawfull the Fathers in their answer did seeme to yeeld this only they said Here was a lawfull way and a better way To warre or to take places of Justice were lawfull wayes but yet to refuse these and not to medle with them at all was a more sublime Christian way And from this mistake came that erroneous opinion of Precepts and Councels Besides it 's thought by the Learned that some of the Ancient Fathers being Philosophers before did retaine much of that stoicall disposition in them and so made Christs Precepts comply with their affections But this I shall endeavour to prove that there is no lawfull Morall way heretofore commanded by Moses to the Jewes which doth not at this time also belong to Christians Only let me premise thus much That howsoever the things questioned by the Adversaries are lawfull to Christians yet there are few that rise up to the practise of them as Christ commanded Certainly these places Of not resisting evill Of giving our cloak to him that would take away our coat c. though they do not exclude the office of a Magistrate or our desire of him to aide us in our defence yet they do forbid the frequent and common practise of most Christians so that we may say there are few states and Kingdomes which do rise up to the practise of that patience and christian meeknesse which we see here commanded inso much that kingdomes are more the kingdomes of the world then of Christ and the lawes and practises of Common-wealths are such as sute more with humane states then with the lawes of Christ But I come to the particulars And first whereas it 's granted to be lawfull by the Law of Moses to swear now say some under the Gospel it 's made absolutely unlawfull under any pretence whatsoever and say they here our Saviour forbids it absolutely Swear not at all and James following this of our Saviour doth the like Hence their opinion is that it is not only unlawfull to swear falsely and vainly but at all in any respect And this say they is a perfection required of Christians above those of the Law Nor is it any wonder that men of late have doubted of this seeing the Learned shew that some of the Fathers of old have thought it absolutely unlawfull for a Christian to swear In Eusebius one Basilides a Christian being commanded to swear replied It was not lawfull for him because he was a Christian And Hierome saith that to swear was permitted to the Jews or infants as to offer sacrifices unto God yet I cannot see but that they did swear also although sometimes they speak as if they thought there were an absolute prohibition of it Yet Athanasius made a solemn oath to purge himself when accused to the Emperour and Tertullian saith though the Christians refused to swear per genium Principis because that they conceived it a devill yet they did swear per salutem principis Some again have thought that it is lawfull to swear but then only in religious things or in things that do concerh the safety of the Publique but that it is not lawfull to swear in any thing of our own or about any money matter and Basil doth object to the Christians of his time the Example of one Clinius a Pythagorean who being fined a great summe of money and might have escaped it by an oath yet chose rather to undergoe that dammage then to swear Some have thought it better if in humane affairs where promissory oaths use to be there were only a naked promise yet with as great a punishment upon the breaking of it as if it were perjury because men are for the most part more awed with fear of punishment then breaking an oath But whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about limiting of swearing yet it is lawfull in some cases to swear neither is our Saviour so to be understood as universally forbidding First because then he would have destroyed the Law which yet he denyeth that he doth for Deut. 6. to swear by God is a command not indeed of a thing absolutely in it self but occasionally as opportunity shall be Therefore the word that signifieth To sweare in the Heb. is in the passive sense implying that we are not voluntarily to choose to do so but when necessity requireth it Secondly again Christ doth not absolutely prohibit it because the use and end of an oath is perpetuall which is to end controversies Heb. 6. Therefore Aquinas saith well that what first principles are in speculatives to determine all conclusions the same an oath is in practicalls to end controversies Thirdly and lastly we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle so that our Saviour doth not altogether forbid it but he reproveth the Pharisees corrupt glosses which were 1. To think that if a man did not name God in his oath though it were by other creatures it was not perjury if he did falsifie that oath And how many come neer this who think if they sweare by the creatures so that God is not named it 's not such an hainous thing The second corrupt interpretation was They thought that Gods Name was not polluted if so be they intended to make good their promise though they did use the Name of God in their oathes about unnecessary and vain matters Now this our Saviour forbids by his affirmative Direction Let your yea be yea and nay nay what soever is more then this is of sinne He speakes there of our ordinary familiar discourse as private persons not concerning a publike consideration even as afterwards when he mentioneth the duty of not resisting evil he forbids private revenge and not publique justice Although some understand this of our Saviours and that of James not of assertory oathes for it 's spoken by our Saviour in addition unto that Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vows but of promissory oaths and so the meaning is Although thou intend to performe or do such a thing yet doe not sweare because things are
but of the generall state under the Gospel So in Gal. 2. and 3. Chapters he argueth against the whole dispensation of the Law and makes it equally abrogated unto all And it may probably be thought that that famous expression of the Apostle ye are not under the Law but under grace is not only to be understood of every particular beleever but generally of the whole dispensation of the Gospell under the New Testament 7. We will grant that to a beleever the Law is as it were abrogated in these particulars 1. In respect of Justification Though I say mitigation might be properly here used yet we will call it abrogation with the Orthodox because to the godly it is in some sense so And that which is most remarkable and most comfortable is in respect of justification for now a beleever is not to expect acceptation at the throne of grace in himself or any thing that he doth but by relying on Christ The Papists they say this is the way to make men idle and lazy doing in this matt er as Saul did who made a Law that none should eate of any thing and so Jonathan must not taste of the honey Saul indeed thought hereby to have the more enemies killed but Jonathan told him that if they had been suffered to eate more honey they should have been more revived and inabled to destroy their adversaries Thus the Papists they forbid us to eat of this honey this precious comfort in Christ as if thereby we should be hindered in our pursuit against sinne whereas indeed it is the only strength and power against them 2. Condemnation and a curse Thus still the condition of a beleever is made unspeakably happy Rom. 8. There is no condemnation And Christ became a curse for us so that by this means the gracious soul hath daily matter of incouragement arguing in prayer thus O Lord though my sins deserve a curse yet Christ his obedience doth not Though I might be better yet Christ needeth not to be better O Lord though I have sinned away my own power to do good yet not Christs power to save Heb. 6. 18. you have a phrase there flying for arefuge doth excellently shew forth the nature of a godly man who is pursued by sin as a malefactor was for his murder and he runneth to Christ for refuge and so Beza understands that expression of the Apostle Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him which implyeth the justice of God searching out for him but he is in Christ Now when we say he is freed from condemnation that is to be understood actually not potentially There is matter of condemnation though not condemnation it selfe 3. Rigid obedience This is another particular wherein the Orthodox declare the abrogation of the Law but this must warily be understood for christ hath not obtained at Gods hands by his death that the Law should not oblige and tye us unto a perfect obedience for this we maintain against Papists that it 's a sin in beleevers they do not obey the Law of God to the utmost perfection of it And therefore hold it impossible for a beleever to fulfill the Law But yet we say this mercy is obtained by Christ that our obedience unto the Law which is but inchoate and imperfect is yet accepted of in and through Christ for if there were only the Law and no Christ or grace It is not any obedience though sincere unlesse perfect would be entertained by God neither would any repentance or sorrow be accepted of but the Law strictly so taken would deale as the judge to the malefactor who being condemned by the Law though he cry out in the anguish of his spirit that he is grieved for what he hath done yet the Law doth not pardon him 4. It is not a terrour to the godly nor are they slavishly compelled to the obedience of it And in this sense they are denied to be under the Law But this also must be rightly understood for there is in the godly an unregenerate or carnall part as well as a regenerate and spirituall See Rom. 7. 22 25. with my minde I serve the Law of God but with my flesh the Law of sin Now although it be true that the Law in the terrible compelling part of it be not necessary to him so far as he is regenerate yet in regard he hath much flesh and corruption in him therefore it is that the Scripture doth use threatnings as so many sharpe goads to provoke them in the waies of piety But what godly man is there whose spirit is so willing alwayes that he doth not finde his flesh untoward and backward unto any holy duty How many times do they need that Christ should draw them and also that the Law should draw them So that there is great use of preaching the Law even to beleevers still as that which may instrumentally quicken and excite them to their duty Qui dicit se amare legem mentitur nescit quid dicit Tà m enim amamus legem quà m homicida carcerem said Luther and this is true of us so far as we are corrupt He that saith he loveth the Law lyeth and knoweth not what he saith for we love the Law as a murtherer doth the Gaol 5. It doth not work or increase sin in them as in the wicked The Apostle Rom. 7. 8. Complaineth of this bitter effect of the Law of God that it made him the worse The more spirituall and supernaturall that was the more did his earnall and corrupt heart rage against it so that the more the Law would damm up the torrent of sinfull lusts the higher did they swell Now this sad issue was not to be ascribed to the Law but to Paul's corruption As in the Dropsie it is not the water or beere if frequently drunk that is to be blamed for the increase of the disease but the ill distemper in the body Or as Chysolologus explaineth it Serm. 112. The greatnesse of the light doth not blind and hebetate the eyes for light was especially created of God for them but it is the infirmitie and weaknesse of the eyes which are not able to endure such clearnesse so the Law which of it's selfe is holy and just of fraile man requiring severe obedience doth more and more overwhelme him And in another place Serm. 115. As the thorns that are by the Axe cut downe do more and more sprout out so do corruptions while cut off by the Law because they remain fixed in the root of us Now in the godly because there is a new nature and a principle of love and delight in the Law of God wrought in him his corruption doth not increase and biggen by the Law but is rather subdued and quelled although sometimes even in the godly it may work such wofull effects Thus Asa grew more enraged because reproved by the prophet for his wickednesse And this also take
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 wisdome 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 school and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for he is not in a Grammar schoole now but in an University Thus you see the chief notion of a School-master is to prepare and guide his correcting is accidentall yea if we may believe Qintilian a master in this kinde 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 knocks and blows which they had what can we say under the Gospel that we are children freed from the rod Though we have not a Shoolmaster yet we have a father to correct us Heb. 12. 5 6 7 8. Do we not in that place finde a plain contradiction of this doctrine For the Apostle doth there alleadge 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 stick beateth out the mothes and the dust so do troubles and adversities corruptions from the children of God The fourth reason why God saw sin in them war Because they were not made perfect according to the conscience Heb. 9. 13 14. Who would not think that the author were some Papist or Socinians 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 obtain righteousness by any of those sacrifices and therefore the good they enjoyed was from Christ the true sacrifice so that unless he will deny Christs blood to be effectuall and operative in the Old Testament this reason must fall to the ground Other reasons he brings which are to the same purpose and therefore may easily be overthrown as that God saw no sin in them because their preachers did not open the kingdome of heaven but he seeth none in us because the least of our Ministers do bring us into this Kingdome Every-one may see the weakness 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 Authors arguments had been that Christ died not so fully for them or that Christ his righteousness 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 Authour hauing truely asserted that God did transact with the Jewes in a Covenant of grace yet he makes that Covenant and this under the Gospel 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 Commandment of love is called an old Commandment and a new yet it is the same for essence so likewise the termes of a good and better do imply no more then a graduall difference in their excellency But that which I shall especially animadvert upon is the differences he giveth between these two Covenants of grace so really distinguished as he 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 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 notfor other sinnes that were done presumptuously and if no sacrifices were admitted then consequently no pardon obtained but under the Gospel Christs blood 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 ignorance This is also an errour among Socinians 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 aboundantly 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 uncleaness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sinnes So ver 21. He shall confess 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 ver 34. This shall be an atonement for the children of Israel once a yeare for all their sinns Thus you see the Scripture speakes plainly for all their sinnes yet the Antinomian speakes as boldly as if nothing were true 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 meanesinnes as appeareth 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 judgment for although a man sin wilfully and advisedly so that there is Nulla alia causa malitae nisi malitia as Austin speakes of some of his sinnes yet there is even an errour in that mans conscience But in the second place grant that there were no legall sacrifices appointed for some sins as indeed particular sacrifices were commonly for sins either of ignorance or if wilfull not of such an high and mortall 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 blood-guiltiness if there were no such thing allowed by God How gross is this errour If this doctrine were true then most of those that are reckoned as godly in the Old Testament could have
for me Conjunge Domine obsequium meum cum omnibus quae 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 aeternam 14. It taketh away the true doctrine of the Law as if that were 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 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 this way of justification Do not all our Protestant authours maintain this truth as that which discerneth us from Heathens Jewes Papists and others in the world May not these things be heard in our Sermons daily Use 2. It is not every kind of denying the Law and setting up of Christ and Grace is presently Antinomianisme Luther writing upon Genesis handling that sin of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit speaketh of a Fanatique as he calls him that denyed Adam could sinne because the Law is not given to the righteous Now saith Bellarmine this is an argument satis aptè deductum ex principiis Lutheranorum because they deny the Law to a righteous man Here you see he chargeth Antinomianisme upon Luther but of these things more hereafter Use 3. To take heed of using the Law for our justification It 's an unwarranted way you cannot finde comfort there Therefore let Christ be made the matter of your righteousnesse and comfort more then he hath been You know the posts that were not sprinkled with bloud were sure to be destroyed and so are all those persons and duties that have not Christ upon them Christ is the propitiation and the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for covering and propitiating of sinne is Genes 6. used of the pitch or plaister whereby the wood of the Ark was so fastened that no water could get in and it doth well resemble the atonement made by Christ whereby we are so covered that the waters of Gods wrath cannot enter upon us And do not think to beleeve in Christ a contemptible and unlikely way for it is not because of the dignitie of faith but by Christ You see the Hyssop or whatsoever it was which did sprinkle the bloud was a contemptible herb yet the instrument to represent great deliverance LECTURE III. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully IT is my intent after the cleare proofe of Justification by the grace of God and not of works to shew how corrupt the Antinomian is in his inferences hence-from and this being done I shall shew you the necessity of holy and good works notwithstanding But before I come to handle some of their dangerous errours in this point let me premise something As 1. How cautelous and wary the Ministers of God ought to be in this matter so to set forth grace as not to give just exception to the popish caviller and so to defend holy works as not to give the Antinomian cause of insultation While our Protestant authors were diligent in digging out that precious gold of justification by free-grace out of the mine of the Scripture see what Canons the Councell of Trent made against them as Antinomian Can. 19. If any man shall say The ten Precepts belong nothing at all to Christians let him be accursed Decem praecepta nihil ad Christianos pertinere anathema sit Again Can. 20. If any man shall hold that a justified person is not bound to the observation of the Commandements but only to believe let him be accursed Si quis dixerit hominem justificatum non teneri ad observantiam mandatorum sed tantùm ad credendum anathema sit Again Can. 21. If any shall hold Christ Jesus to be given unto men as a Redeemer in whom they are to trust but not as a Law-giver whom they are to obey let him be accursed Si quis dixerit Christum Jesum datum fuisse hominibus ut redemptorem cui fidant non autem ut legislatorem cui obediant anathema sit You may gather by these their Canons that we hold such opinions as indeed the Antinomian-doth but our Writers answer Here they grossely mistake us and if this were all the controversie we should quickly agree It is no wonder then if it be so hard to preach free-grace and not provoke the Papist or on the other side to preach good works of the Law and not offend the Antinomian 2. There have been dangerous assertions about good works even by those that were no Antinomians out of a great zeale for the grace of God against Papists These indeed for ought I can learn did no wayes joyn with the Antinomians but in this point there is too much affinity There were rigid Lutherans called Flacians who as they did goe too far at least in their expressions about originall corruption for there are those that doe excuse them so also they went too high against good works Therefore in stead of that position maintained by the Orthodox Good works are necessary to salvation Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem they held Good works are pernicious to salvation Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem The occasion of this division was the book called The Interim which Charles the Emperour would have brought into the Germane Churches In that book was this passage Good works are necessary to salvation to which Melancthon and others assented not understanding a necessity of merit or efficiency but of presence but Flacius Illyricus and his followers would not taking many high expressions out of Luther even as the Antinomians doe for their ground Hence also Zanchy because in his writings he had such passages as these No man grown up can be saved unlesse he give himself to good works and walk in them One Hinckellman a Lutheran doth endeavour by a troop of nine Arguments to tread downe this assertion of Zanchy which he calls Calviniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a most manifest errour Now if all this were spoken to take men off from that generall secret sin of putting confidence in the good works we doe it were more tolerable in which sense we applaud that of Luther Take heed not only of evil works but of good Cave non tantùm ab operibus malis sed etiam
if you doe 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 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 wee shall see anon But to make u◠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 hee not also promise to doe for us as to circumcise our hearts and to walk in his commandements How much better is that of Austius 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 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 hee would touch the heavens with his singer 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 wee 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 self to such a subject but becomes impossible accidentally through a mans fault Now for a man to be commanded that which through his own fault he becometh unable to do is no illusion or cruelty If a creditor require his debt of a bankrupt who hath prodigally spent all and made himself 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 beyond a duty required or power ever given 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 himself 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 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 do almost say so but the truth is the Law as is to be shewed against the generall mistake if it was not in it self 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 if they could doe no other wayes This also seemeth very strange if men can do 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 sinne but he doth it with all his inclination and delight How farre voluntarinesse is requisite to the nature of a sinne 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 that though men at first may choose whether they will be wicked or no yet if once habituated they cannot but be evil 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 evil The
Oake while it was a little plant might be pulled up but when it 's grown 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 reproofes and upbraidings because there is no man a sinner or a damner of himself but it is by his own fault and withall these serve to be a goad and a sharp thorn in the sinners side whereby he is made restlesse in his sin 5. To what purpose are exhortations and admonitions Though 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 stocks 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 read 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 plain 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 Angel 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 thrown into the ground fructifieth even that which comes from a plain 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 onely to shew whence the power of God is Bonorum ingeniorum 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 as well as the effects of Gods grace And this cannot be denyed but that we are the subject who being acti agimus enabled by grace do 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 do prove conversion to be his act should not other places also which bid us turn unto the Lord prove that it is our Act The answer is easie none deny but that to beleeve and to turn unto God are our acts we cannot beleeve without the minde 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 turn unto God as if those motions of grace had such an impression upon the heart as when the seal 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 thrown 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 minde 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 as you heard makes God converting of a man to be as when a Physician poureth down his potion into the sick-mans throat whether he will or no For it is most true that the Will in the illicite and immediate acts of it cannot be forced by any power whatsoever It's impossible that a man should beleeve unwillingly for to beleeve requireth an act of the Will The School-men dispute Whether fear or ignorance or lust do not compell the will and they do rightly conclude that it cannot Therefore though a mans conversion be resisted by the corrupt heart will of a man yet when it is overcome by the grace of God it turneth willingly unto him Therefore this argument though it seem strange yet we may say of it as he in another case Hoc argumentum non venit à Dea Suada 7. Then men may sit still and never stirre onely expecting when grace shall come for if we have no power why are men exhorted to come to Christ and reade the Word And indeed this hath so wrought upon some that they have not used any meanes at all but expect Gods providence to be a supplyer of all as Brentius if I mistake not relateth of an Anabaptist woman who invited many to supper and never provided any thing expecting God would do it Now this Question is built upon a falshood as if a mans working were wholly excluded whereas you are to know that there are two kinds of holy things 1. There are holy things that are internally and essentially so and these we cannot doe without God John 15. Without me ye can do nothing Austin observes the emphasis he doth not say No hard thing but nothing and he doth not say Perficere perfect but
p 46 Free-will by nature p. 85 Arguments for free-will answered p. 94. 95 G. GEnealogies how usefull and how vain Page 2 How the Gentiles are said to be without a Law p. 59 Who are meant by the word Gentiles p. 58 The Gospel and Law may be compared in a double respect p. 239. 240 The word Gospel taken two wayes p. 240 Whether the Gospel be absolute or no. p. 259 Gospel taken strictly is not a doctrine of Repentance or holy works p. 262 All Good morally is good theologically p. 59 Good works how taken p. 39 Foure things required to the essence of good works ibid. The word Grace used sometimes for the effects of grace but more commonly for the favour of God p. 21 Grace is more then love p. 22 Grace implyeth indebitum and demeritum of the contrary as Cameron observes ibid. What grace the Pelagians acknowledge ib. Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given to it p. 91 H. A Two-fold writing of the law in the heart p. 60 The properties of holinesse fixed at first in Adams heart p. 119 Humiliation comes by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects p. 263 I. IMage and likeness signifie one thing p. 114 An Image four-fold ibid. Wherein the Image of God in man consists p. 115. 116. 117 A Thing said to be immortall four wayes p. 110 The Injudiciousnesse of the Antinomians p. 31 Whether Adams immortality in innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 139 Some things just because God wills them other things are just and therefore God wills them p. 4 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifies no more in it self then other acts of obedience p. 16 Expecting justification by the Law very dangerous Fifteen evils which follow thereupon mentioned p. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27 Islebius Captain of the Antinomians in Luthers daies p. 276 How the justification of the Gospel may stand with the good works of the Law done by grace p. 39 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification page 44 K. KIngdome of Heaven not mentioned in all the Old Testament p. 253 How Kingdome of Heaven is taken in Mat. 5. 17. p. 274 L. HOw the Law is good in eight respects p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Four acts of the Law p. 6. The two-fold use of the Law to the ungodly p. 8. A four-fold use of the Law to the godly p. 9 Cautions concerning the Law p. 11 1. The word Law diversly taken ibid. p. 147. 226 2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit p. 12 3. To do a cōmand out of obedience to the Law and out of love are not opposite p. 13 4. Christs obedience to the Law exempts not us from obedience our selves unlesse it be in respect to those ends for which he obeyed p. 14 5. The Law condemnes a beleevers sinne though not his person p. 15 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it ibid. 7. Distinguish betwixt what is primarily and what is occasionally in the Law ibid. That the Law hath a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man p. 55 The derivation of the word Lex p. 60 Two things necessary to the essence of a Law p. 61 How the Law becomes a Covenant ibid. The division of Lawes in generall and why the morall Law is so called p. 147 The Law of Moses differs from the Law of Nature in three respects p. 148. 149 Why the Law was given in the wilderness ib. That the Law was in the Church before Moses p. 150 Three ends of the promulgation of the Law p. 150. 151 The Law of Moses a perfect Rule p. 152 Three differences betwixt the Judiciall Ceremoniall and Morall Law p. 155 Generall observations about the Law and the time of the delivery of the Law pag. 155. 156. 157. c. Three observations concerning the preparation to the delivery of the Law p. 155 Whether the law as given by Moses do belong to us Christians p. 165. proved p. 168. Objections answered p. 173 Though the Law as given by Moses did not belong to Christians yet the doctrine of the Antinomians holds not p. 165 Christ in the Gospel onely interprets the old Law and doth not adde new proved by four reasons p. 177. 178 The Law is spirituall in the Old Testament as in the New proved by eight instances p. 180. 181. c. The Law may be instrumentall to worke sanctification and conversion pag. 195. 3. Cautions about it ib. 196. proved by six reasons p. 199. 200. Objections answered p. 202 The Law is established three wayes by the Gospel p. 210 Three affections belonging to a Law p. 211 Three parts in the Law p. 213 Those phrases considered Of the Law and Without the Law and under the Law and In the Law p. 226 A two-fold being under the Law ibid. False differences given by some betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 242 Law and Gospel united in the Ministery p. 261 Law opposed and oppugned two waies Directly Interpretatively page 274 Law opposed interpretatively three waies p. 275 Law by men abrogated or made void three waies ibid. A three-fold liberty p. 90 A three-fold light p. 115 M. MInistery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects p. 267 Moses in his zeal breaking the Tables vindicated from rashnesse and sinfull perturbation p. 160 The opinion of souls mortality confuted p. 111. 112 Adam was under the morall Law in innocency What 's meant by the word morall p. 148 Morall Law bindes two waies p. 166. 167 That the Morall Law perpetually continues a rule and Law proved by four Reasons p. 220. 221 Objections against the continuance of the morall Law answered p. 223 Morall Law having Christ for the end of it may be considered two wayes p. 266 Marcionites and Manichees the first Hereticks that opposed the Law p. 275 N. WHat is meant by the word Nature in Scripture p. 59. 60 There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts p. 60 Wherein the law of Nature consists p. 62 Four bounds of the law of Nature p. 63 Light of Nature considered in a three-fold respect p. 67 A three-fold use of the light of Nature p. 68 The light of Nature obscured three waies p. 71 The light of Nature is necessary though insufficient in religious and morall things p. 72. It 's necessary two waies ib. See p. 85. 86. 92 The light of Nature no Judge in matters of faith p. 73 It 's no prescriber of divine worship p. 74 Natures insufficiency described in three reasonings ibid. The Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature p. 79 How farre nature will reach in some other things p. 81. 82. 83 Man by the power of Nature wholly unable to performe good actions proved by 3.
arguments p. 86 Nature cannot dispose or prepare a mans self for justification or sanctification p. 87. proved by four reasons p. 87. 88 All works of meere Nature are sins before God proved by foure Reasons p. 92 The Etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 60 O. COrrupt glosses of the Pharisees concerning oathes reproved p. 187 Promissory oathes dangerous p. 186 The obedience of the Saints implies obedientiam servi though not obedientiam servilem p. 14 Christs active obedience to the Law imputed to beleevers p. 271 The obligation of the law of Nature is from God p. 64 Gods promises are obligations to himself not to us p. 127 Why the old Covenant is called old p. 241 How an opinion may corrupt the life p. 49 Whether Originall sin may be found out by the meere light of Nature p. 82 P. PAlemon converted from his drunkenness by Plato's Lecture which he came to deride p. 70 Papists make three false differences betwixt the Law and the Gospel p. 243 Paul and James reconciled in the point of justification p. 44 The perpetuity of the obligation of the law of Nature p. 64 A distinction of a three-fold piety confuted p. 80 The Law of God by Moses is so perfect a rule that Christ added no new precept to it p. 179 Different phrases used concerning the Ceremoniall law which are never applyed to the Morall law p. 2â—0 The opinion of the Pharisees concerning the Law p. 178 Why besides the Morall law a Positive law was given to Adam in innocency Two Reasons p. 106. 107 The Positive law did lay an obligation on Adams posterity p. 108 The seven Precepts of Noah What the Thalmudists speake concerning them p. 145 It 's a generall Rule that the pressing of morall duties by the Prophets in the Old Testament is but as an explanation of the Law p. 180 The Primitive Christians held it unlawfull to kill in defence p. 193 Capitall punishments lawfull in the New Testament p. 188. 189 To what purpose are exhortations to them who have no power to obey p. 98 Popery in a great part Antinomianisme page 276 R. WHy a Reason is rendred by God for the fourth Commandement rather then others p. 170 Remission of sinnes under the law plenary as well as under the Gospel proved against the Antinomian p. 246. 247. 248 Repentance how taken p. 260. 261 Resemblances of the Trinity coÌ„futed p. 79. 80 Every Rule hath vim praecepti as well as doctrinae p. 6 To do a duty because of reward promised is not slavish and unlawfull p. 128 Revenge forbidden in the Old Testament as strictly as in the New p. 192. 193 Righteousnesse of the Law and Gospel differ much p. 5 Whether we may be now said by Christ to be more righteous then Adam in innocency p. 138 The Law of Retaliation Matth. 7. 12. opened p. 82 The properties of the righteousnesse at first fixed in Adams heart p. 119 Whether righteousnesse were naturall to Adam p. 120 S. THe Sabbath in innocency not typicall of Christ p. 137 Satan cannot work beyond a morall perswasion as God doth in conversion p. 130 What the word Sanctifie implies p. 203. 204 How the Jewes were in more servitude then Christians p. 255 Sinners outward which are majoris infamiae Sinners inward which are majoris reatus p. 179 Sincerity taken two waies p. 265 Socinians and Papists make additions in the Gospel besides what was in the Law p. 242. 243 Why the shell-fish was unclean to the Jewes p. 2 Law called spirituall in a two-fold sense 1. Effective 2. Formaliter p. 7 How the state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity p. 137 The state of reparation excells the state of innocency in certainty of perseverance ib. Eudoxus said he was made to behold the sun p. 77 Summe of all heavenly doctrine reduced to three heads Credenda Speranda Facienda p. 252 253 Symbolicall precept p. 104 T. TEaching nova novè p. 2 Tully said that the Law of the twelve Tables did exceed all the libraries of Philosophers both in weight of authority and fruitfulnesse of matter p. 3. 4 The Threatnings of the Gospel against those who reject Christ arise from the Law joyned in practicall use with the Gospel p. 261 Tree of knowledge p. 105 Whether the Tree of life was a Sacrament of Christ to Adam or no. p. 136 No truth in Divinity doth crosse the truth of nature p. 72 Doctor Tayler his Report of Antinomianisme p. 278 V. THe reason of the variety of Gods administrations in the two T. p. 256 A two fold Unbelief Negative which damnes none Positive which damnes many p. 81 Unbelief a sinne against the Law as well as against the Gospel p. 262 How God justifies the ungodly p. 36. 37 W. MInisters ought to be wary so to set out grace as not to give just exceptions to the Papists and so to defend holy works as not to give the Antinomians cause of insultation p. 29. 30 Warre lawfull under the Gospel p. 191 Will serious and efficacious the distinction examined p. 107 How the Word in generall is the instrument of conversion p. 197. 198. Two Rules about it proved p. 199 Word how used p. 145 Works denyed by the Antinomians to be a way to heaven p. 33 There have been dangerous assertions concerning works even by those who were no Antinomians out of a great zeal for the grace of God against Papists p. 30 The presence of good works in the person justified denied by the Antinomians p. 34. They deny any gain or losse to come by them No peace of conscience comes by doing good works nor lost by omitting them p. 34. which is confuted ibid. They deny good works to be signes or testimonies of grace p. 35. Confuted ibid. Upon what grounds are the people of God to be zealous of good works p. 38 The Antinomian erreth two contrary waies about good works p. 39 Distinction betwixt saying that good works are necessary to justified persons and that they are necessary to justification p. 40 Good works necessary upon 13. grounds p. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. A Table of divers Texts of Scripture which are opened or vindicated by this TREATISE Genesis Chap. Ver. Page 1 26 113 2 17 122 Exodus 20 1 145 34 27. 28 161 Leviticus 6 2. 3 246 16 16 247 Numbers 13 23 215 Deuteronomy 4 13 229 30 11 97 32 4 33 33 3 157 1 Samuel 4 17 240 2 Sam. 1. 10 240 1 Kings 8. 9 163 2 Kings 20. 3 45 Psalme 1. 19. 119 9 68 18 37 50 2 157 Isaiah 65. 1 248 Jeremiah 16 14. 15 172 50 20 244 Ezek. 16.  244 Daniel 9. 14 244 Zech. 13. 1 244 Matthew 5 17 46. 273  21. 22 174 7 17 33  12 82 12 28 157 Mark 13 7 265 16 15 240 Luke 11 20 157 16 16 223 John 1 9 78 8 7 190 14 31 14 15