reall benefits by Christ As Elisha sent his servant with a staffe to raise up the Shunamites son but hee could doe nothing then cometh the Prophet himselfe and raiseth him up so it 's here Moses was like the Prophets servant hee went with a staffe to raise up those dead in sin but could not doe it without Christ Here may be one Question made upon these things and that is Why God appointed such various and different administrations This providence of God became a rocke to the Marcionites and Manichees insomuch that they denyed the same God to be Author of both the Testaments To answer this certainly God if hee pleased could have as clearly revealed Christ and poured out his Spirit giving eternall life as plentifully under the Law as under the Gospel But to aske why hee did thus would be as presumptuous and arrogant as to aske why hee created the world no sooner If the School-master teach the new beginner in another way then hee doth the proficient in study no man doth blame his wisedome As in the Paschall Lamb they were to eate the flesh but to throw away the bones so in all matters of religion those things that are revealed and profitable wee may feed upon and whatsoever is abstruse and difficult we may let goe Praestat per Deum nescire quia ipse non revelaverit quà m per hominem scire quia ipse praesumpserit Tert. de Anima Now to conclude I come to give the difference between the Differences between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken Law strictly taken as requiring exact and perfect obedience promising eternall life upon no other termes and the Gospel strictly taken as a solemne promulgation of Christ and his benefits to a broken sinner And the first is this The Law in some measure of it is made 1. The Law in some measure is known by the light of Nature but the truth of the Gospel must be wholly revealed by God knowne by naturall light and so agreeable to a naturall conscience I say in some measure for there is much of the duty of the Law that is unknowne to naturall consciences yet the most externall and outward duties are knowne and accordingly as the truth of them is discerned by naturall light so the will doth joyne with them as good to be done though not in a godly way But it is otherwise with the Gospel for the very truth of it must be wholly revealed by God so that no naturall acumen in the world could ever have excogitated this wonderfull remedy of justification and salvation by Christ And as it is thus above knowledge so the heart is more averse from this way And by this you may see why it is such an hard thing to beleeve why the people of God are so hardly perswaded when loaden with guilt to rowle their soules upon Christ The reason is there is nothing in his naturall conscience to further him in this duty Presse a man against murder theft adultery here is naturall conscience joyning for this duty but urge him to beleeve this is altogether above nature Hence it is also that naturally we seek to be justified by the workes wee doe so that to be justified by faith is another way then corrupted nature in us or right nature in Adam would have inclined unto Therefore let not the people of God be so discouraged in their agonies and combats about their unbeliefe Let them know that a little degree of faith is of great consequence And if he said that Christianity was perpetua naturae violentia a perpetuall violence offered to nature this is most sure in matter of faith Wee are as froward in rejecting of a promise as stubborne in refusing of a command The second difference is in the object matter The Law holdeth 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness the Gospel brings pardon through Christ forth a perfect righteousnesse and will not admit of any other but the Gospel that condescends and brings pardon through Christ. And this is the maine difference and in which they can never be made one Now the Papist Arminian Socinian and others do overthrow this grand and maine difference holding justification by works under some notion or other whereas the Apostle maketh an immediate opposition If of faith then not of works The Apostle doth not distinguish of works of nature and works of grace or works of grace perfect and imperfect but speaketh absolutely and so doth also exclude that subtile opinion of making faith to justifie as a work for the Apostle making an opposition between faith and works must necessarily take faith under such a notion as cannot be a work And this truth is that which is the pillar of the Church of God and that which differenceth us from Jewes Turkes Papists and many heretickes The third difference is from the manner of obtaining the good thing 3. If righteousnesse were by the Law eternall life were a debt but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence promised Hee that shall obtaine eternall life by the Law hath it of debt and by way of justice Rom. 4. 4. Not as if Adam in the state of innocency could have merited at Gods hands or as if God became in strict justice a debtor seeing Adam was beholding to God for all but in some sense it would have been so Hence boasting would not then have been excluded eternall life being the reward of those holy workes which he should have done but now all is of grace through Christ our righteousness is meerly Gods indulgence not the holinesse that is in us but the sinne pardoned makes us acceptable So that the broken contrite heart can never sufficiently admire the grace and goodnesse of God in the Gospel-way And no marvell if so be that Paul is so frequently ravished with the considerations thereof This may well be called good newes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if our hearts were spiritually affected wee should say How beautifull are the feet of those that bring these glad tydings The fourth difference is in respect of the subject The Law strictly 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel for broken hearted sinners taken is onely for those who have a perfect and holy nature therefore it 's a Covenant as you heard of friendship and not of reconciliation so that there is no necessity of any Mediatour Indeed there is good use of urging it to proud Pharisaicall men to bring them out of love with themselves to grosse sinners that their hearts might be broken seeing the curses belong to them yea to the godly also to teach them the faire copy they are to write after but in respect of justification by it and eternall life there is none can have that benefit but such who shall be found perfectly holy It was not Moses but the serpent that did heale so it is not the Law but Christ that can comfort
utmost end in that he is the preserver and authour of nature or else in his supernaturalls as God did bestow righteousnesse upon him whereby he was inabled to enjoy God as his supernaturall end And for this end is this errour maintained that so man now borne may be made no worse then Adam in that condition at first which errour if admitted would much eclipse all that glory which is attributed in Scripture to grace converting and healing of us Therefore to this Question these things may be answered 1. That it cannot be denied but that in Adam such qualities 1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered as did flow from him as a living creature endued with a rationall soul and actions may be considered which did flow from him as a living creature endued with a reasonable soule so 1 Cor. 15. 45. there the first Adam is said to be made a living soule that is a living creature in his kind whereby he did provide and prepare those things for his nourishment and life that he needed and this is to have a naturall body as the Apostle calls it But we may not stay in the consideration of him as a man in an abstracted notion but as so created by God for that end to be made happy Therefore howsoever some learned speak of the animall state and spirituall estate of Adam yet both must be acknowledged to be naturall to him 2. In the next place we doe not hold in such a manner his 2. The principle and habit of righteousnesse was naturall to Adam but help from God to persevere supernaturall righteousnesse and holinesse to be naturall to him as that we deny every thing to Adam that was supernaturall for no question but the favour of God which he did enjoy may well be called supernaturall so also that actuall help of God say some which was to be continued to him For howsoever the principle and habit as it were of righteousnesse was naturall to him yet to have help from God to continue and persevere was supernaturall Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation but of conservation in righteousnesse Even as you see the eye though it hath a naturall power to see yet there is a further requisite to the act of seeing which is light without which it could not be The second Question is Whether Christ did intervene in his help to Adam so that he needed Christ in that state For here we see many learned and sound men differ some say that Christ being onely a Mediatour of reconciliation could no waies be considered in any respect to Adam for God and he were friends Others againe make the grace of Christ universally necessary even to Angels and Adam saying that proposition Without mee ye can doe nothing is of everlasting truth and did extend to Adam not indeed by way of pardon or reconciliation but by way of preservation and conservation in the state of righteousnesse Thus those excellent pillars in the Church of God Calvin Bucer and Zanchy with others Now for the clearing of this truth we must consider these particulars 1. That it cannot be denied but that Christ as the second Person of the Trinity did create and make all things This is to be diligently maintained against those cursed opinions that begin even publikely to deny the Deity of Christ Now there are three generall waies of proving Christ to be God 1. In that the name Jehovah and God is applyed to him without any such respect as to other creatures 2. In that hee hath the attributes of God which are Omnipotency and Omnisciency c. 3. In that he doth the works which God only can do such are raising up from the dead by his owne power and creation Now that Christ doth create and sustaine all things appeareth John 1. Colos 1. and Hebrewes 1. 3. so that it 's impudent blasphemy which opposeth clear Scripture to detract this from Christ Indeed his creating of the world doth not exclude the other Persons onely he is included hereby 2. What help the Angels had by Christ. Here I find different thoughts even of the judicious That place Colos 1. 20. To reconcile all things to himselfe by him whether things in heaven or earth is thought by some a firme place to prove that the Angels needed Christ even as a Mediatour and Calvin upon the place brings two Reasons why the Angels need Christs mediation 1. Because they were not without danger of falling and therefore their confirmation was by Christ But how can this be proved that their confirmation came from Christ and not from God as a plentifull rewarder of their continued obedience Indeed if that opinion of Salmerons were true which holds it very probable that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned but had a set space and time of repentance given them this would with more colour have pleaded for Christs mediation but that opinion cannot be made good out of the Scripture 2. The second Reason of Calvins is that the obedience of the The obedience of Angells may be said to be imperfect negatively not privatively 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 comparativè 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 majesty 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 downe and then briefly capitulated and summed up againe 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 againe how the Angels can be said to be gathered seeing they were never
that the law of Nature condemneth Doth not Nature condemne lying couzening in your trades lusts and uncleannesse How many Trades-men are there that need not a Paul Even Tully in his Book of Offices will condemne their lying sophisticate wares and unlawfull gaine It 's much how far they saw this way Sins against naturall conscience are called Crying sins and though men have repented of them yet how long is it ere faith can still their cry Have not many Heathens been faithfull and just in their dealings It 's true that man hath not godlinesse enough who hath naturall honesty therefore there are many spirituall sins that he never humbleth himselfe for as Paul saith he knew not the motions of his heart to be sin Hence men are to be exhorted to get further light and more tendernesse then a naturall conscience can ever attaine unto Neverthelesse if men so live as if they had not this Law in their hearts they are the more inexcusable Are there not men who call themselves Christians that yet the very Heathens will condemne at that great day Vse 3. Why it is so hard to beleeve in the Lord Christ because here is nothing of nature in it it 's all supernaturall The Papists say we make an easie way to heaven for let a man be never so great a sinner yet if he doe but beleeve all is well Now the people of God sensible of their sin find nothing harder for it 's in the law of Nature they should not lye or steale but that they should beleeve in Christ for pardon when labouring under their offences here nature doth not help at all I acknowledge it 's a dispute among Divines Whether in that law implanted in Adams heart there was not also a power to beleeve in Christ when revealed But of that hereafter but the orthodox deny that he had explicite justifying faith for that was repugnant to the condition he was in But the thing I intend is to shew how supernaturall and hidden the way of beleeving is No marvell therefore if it be made such a peculiar worke of the Spirit to convince of this sin LECTURE VII ROM 2. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law doe by nature the things of the law c. THe Doctrine already gathered from these words is that The Gentiles have a law of Nature written in their hearts Which law doth consist partly in light and knowledge of speculative principles and partly in practice and obedience to practicall principles So then from hence we may consider first Of the light of Nature and then secondly Of the power of Nature and from both these we may have profitable matter and also may confute some dangerous errours which have poysoned too many I shall begin therefore with the light of Nature or Reason and shall endeavour to shew the Necessity of it and yet the Insufficiency of it It is not such a starre that can lead us to Christ In the first place take notice that this light of Nature may be considered in a three-fold respect First As it 's a relict or remnant of the image of God for howsoever The light of Nature is a remnant of Gods image the image of God did primarily consist in righteousness and true holinesse yet secondarily it did also comprehend the powers and faculties of the reasonable soule in the acts thereof And this later part abideth It is true this light of Nature comparatively to that of faith is but as a glow-worme to the Sun yet some light and irradiation it hath God when he made man had so excellently wrought his owne image in him that man could not fall unlesse that were also destroyed as they write of Phidias who made Alexanders statue yet had wrought his owne picture so artificially in it that none could break Alexanders statue but he must also spoile Phidias his image who was the maker of it And thus it is in Adams fall yet there remaineth some light still which the Apostle calleth Rom. 1. Truth he vouchsafeth that name to it They detaine the truth in unrighteousnesse Now this moon-light or glimmering of Nature is of a threefold use 1. For societies and publike Common-wealths whereby they have 1. The light of Nature usefull and necessary for the making of wholsome lawes in Common-wealths made wholsome lawes It 's wonderfull to consider how excellent the Heathens have been therein Thus Chrysostome speaking how the most excellent men need the counsell of others instanceth in Jethro's advice to Moses about choosing assistant officers That great man Moses saith he who was so potent in words and workes who was the friend of God which commanded the creatures was helped in counsell by Jethro his father-in-law an obscure man and a Barbarian Although to speak the truth Jethro when he gave this counsell was not so but had the knowledge of the true God 2. This light of nature serveth for the instigation and provocation 2. It instigateth to good duties towards God and man of men to many good actions and duties towards God and man Hence still observe that phrase They detaine reason and naturall light is bound as a prisoner by the chaines of lusts and sinfull affections which thing Aristotle doth fully set forth in his incontinent person whom he describeth to have a right opinion in the generall about that which is good yet being too much affected to some particular pleasure or profit by that meanes the better part is over-borne and therefore Aristotle saith the better part of the mind did provoke to better things This agreeth with that of Paul And as they bound captivated practicall truths towards man so they also imprisoned them about God Plato had the knowledge of one God yet he dared not to communicate it to the vulgar Therefore saith he Opificem universorum neque invenire facile neque inventum in vulgus promulgare tutum Here for feare of the people he detained this truth And Austin hath a most excellent chapter cap. 10. lib. 6. de Civit. to shew how Seneca kept the truth in unrighteousnesse he speaks of a Book Seneca wrote which now is lost against Superstitions where hee doth most freely and boldly write against the practices of their worship but saith Austin Libertas affuit scribenti non viventi I will name some passages because they are applicable to Popish Idolatry as well as Paganish Immortales does in materia vilissima immobili dedicant Numina vocant quae si spiritu accepto subitò occurrerent monstra haberentur Faciunt tam indecora honestis tam indigna liberis tam dissimillima sanis ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere cos si cum paucioribus furerent nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba But Seneca when he had spoken thus and much more in the scorne of those gods what doth he resolve upon that his wise man shall doe in those times In animi religione non habeat sed in
the glorious image of God put into us for of the later as it is informed by Scripture it is no question Now this is absolutely necessary two waies 1. As a passive qualification of the subject for faith for there cannot be faith in a stone or in a beast no more then there can be sin in them Therefore Reason or the light of Nature makes man in a passive capacity fit for grace although hee hath no active ability for it And when he is compared to a stone it is not in the former sense but the later And secondly it 's necessary by way of an instrument for we cannot beleeve unlesse we understand whether knowledge be an act ingredient into the essence of faith or whether it be prerequisite all hold there must be an act of the understanding one way or other going to beleeve Hence knowledge is put for faith and Hebr. 11. By saith we understand Thus it is necessary as an instrument 3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth crosse the truth of Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none doe crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Nature as it 's the remnant of Gods image This indeed is hard to cleere in many points of Divinity as in the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christs Incarnation which seemeth paradoxall to Reason of whom Tertullian lib. 5. de carne Christi cap. 5. thus Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum est Mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus credibile est quia ineptum Sepultus resurrexit certum est quia impossibile Yet seeing the Apostle calls the naturall knowledge of a man Truth and all truth is from God which waies soever it come there can therefore be no contradiction between it And hereupon our Divines doe when they have confuted the Poposh doctrine of Transubstantiation by Scripture shew also that for a body to be in two places is against the principles of Nature They indeed call for faith in this point and Lapide upon these words Hoc est corpus meum saith If Christ should aske me at the day of judgment Why did you beleeve the bread to be the body of Christ I will answer This text if I be deceived These words have deceived me But we must compare place with place and Scripture with Scripture As for the doctrine of the Trinity though it be above Reason and we cannot look into that mysterie no more then an Owle can into the Sun Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies beames yet it is not against it 4. The same object may be knowne by the light of Nature and by the light of Faith This may easily be understood I may know there is a God by the light of Nature and I may beleeve it because the Scripture faith so so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made and by arguments know it was made and this is called faith by James The divels beleeve that is they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God and feel it by experience not that they have faith for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God and hath accompanying it pia affectio to him that speaketh as the first truth Faith therefore and the light of Nature goe to the knowledge of the same thing different waies faith doth because of the testimony and divine revelation of God the light of Nature doth because of arguments in the thing it selfe by discourse And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding but its simple and apprehensive 5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary yet it is not The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith a Judge in matters of faith The Lutheran seemeth to depresse Reason too much and the Socinian exalteth it too high They make it not onely an instrument but a Judge and thereupon they reject the greatest mysteries of Religion I know some have endeavoured to shew that Religio est summa ratio and there are excellent men that have proved the truth of the Christian Religion by Reason and certainly if we can by Reason prove there is any Religion at all we may by the same Reason prove that the Christian Religion is the true one But who doth not see how uncertaine Reason is in comparison of Faith I doe not therefore like that assertion of one who affects to be a great Rationalist it is Chillingworth that saith We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we have the greatest Reason that this is the Word of God But we must not confound the instrument and the Judge holy truthes they are Scripture truthes though hammered out by Reason As the Smith that takes golden plate and beates it into what shape he pleaseth his hammer doth not make it gold but onely gold of such a shape And thus also Reason doth not make a truth divine onely holds it forth and declareth it in such a way 6. It s altogether insufficient to prescribe or set downe any worship of Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship God Hence God doth so often forbid us to walk after our owne imaginations and to doe that which we shall choose The Apostle calleth it Will-worship when a mans Will is the meere cause of it Now its true men are more apt to admire this as we see in the Pharisees and Papists they dote upon their Traditions more then Gods Institutions Hence Raymundus a Papist speaking of the Masse It is saith he as full of mysteries as the sea is full of drops of water as the heaven hath Angels as the firmament hath starres and the earth little crummes of sand But what saith our Saviour Luk. 18. that which is highly esteemed before men is abomination before God That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to idols and false-worship It s true indeed even in worship light of Nature and prudence is instrumentally required to order the Institutions of God but as Reason may not make a new Article of Faith so neither a new part of worship Now Natures in sufficiency is described in these three reasonings 1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye It 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eie was well called by Parisiensis a madness in some who doubted not to say The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then by the Scriptures The people of Israel would have sensible gods that they might see them and certainly men doe as much delight in sensible pompous worship as children doe in gay babies therefore the Prophet speaketh of their goodly images But all this ariseth because they are ignorant of spirituall worship and cannot tell how to make spirituall advantage from God
true that the text is here corrupt and Whether the Psalmists meaning be not perverted For the first in the Hebrew it's there line but the Apostle following the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they had read Colam for Cavam But the Answer is that the Septuagint regarded the sense and the Psalmist having spoken before of the words or speech of heaven they therefore interpret according to that sense And by line is meant the Structure and exact composing of all these things which declareth the admirable wisdome of the Maker As for the later it is indeed generally taken as if the Apostle did speak this of the Apostles preaching the Gospel which the Psalmist did of the heavens insomuch that the Lutherans interpret all the former part of the Psalme allegorically Others think the Apostle alledgeth that place allusively not by way of argument as in that place of the Epistle to the Corinthians where the Apostle applyeth the speech about Manna to matter of liberality But Jansenius and Vasquez among the Papists and Beza with others among the orthodox think the Apostle keepeth to the literall meaning of the Psalmist as if this should be the Apostles meaning Israel hath heard for God made known himselfe even to the very Heathens by the creatures how much more to the Jewes by the Prophets Which way soever you take it it proveth that God hath a schoole of Nature by his creatures as well as a schoole of Grace by his Ministers The last proofe is from John 1. He is the true light which enlightneth every man coming into the world for so we think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth referre to man not light though Socinus and Grotius plead much for it Some indeed understand this of the light of Grace but it will be more universally and necessarily true of the light of Reason which is in infants radically though not actually I shall not here relate what unsound Positions an Antinomian Authour hath in a manuscript Sermon upon this place because it is not pertinent So then there is an implanted sense and feeling of a deity which made Tertullian say O anima naturaliter Christiana and Cyprian Summa est delicti nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non potes If you object that the Scripture speaks of the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be understood of a distinct and obedient knowledge of him And as for some Atheists spoken of that have expressedly professed it what they did was partly in derision of the many gods as Socrates and another who needing a fire threw a statue of Hercules into the fire saying Age Hercules XIII laborem subiturus adesto obsonium nobis cocturus Besides they did this with their tongue more then their heart as appeareth by Diagoras who when he had made a famous oration against a deity the people came applauding him and said he had almost perswaded them but only they thought that if any were God he was for his eloquence sake and then this wretch like Herod was content to be thought a god The second Question is Whether the mystery of the Trinity and The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature of the Incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature And here certainly we must answer negatively for the Apostle 2 Corinth 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospell saith It hath not entered into the heart of a man to conceive of them which is to be understood not onely of the blessed joy and peace of those truths but also as they are truths so that all these things are of meere supernaturall revelation Hence we reade that when by reason of the Arrians there was an hot dispute about these mysteries there was a voice heard from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fall of the wise men I doe acknowledge that Austin and others have sought the foot-steps or representations of the Trinity in the creatures yea Nierembergius a Jesuit de origine sacrae Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 3. doth hold that God did intend by the workes of creation to declare the mysteries of graces as by those artificiall things of the Ark Tabernacle and Temple he intended spirituall mysteries but this is false But then they did first know and beleeve this doctrine by Scripture and then afterwards goe to represent it Yet it must be confessed that all these Similies have scarce one foot much lesse foure to run on The Schoole-men speak of the three things in every creature Esse Posse Operari But especially that is taken up about the soule when it understandeth or knoweth and when it loveth and the Son of God is represented by that Verbum mentis and the holy Ghost by Amor. Now here is a mistake for Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1. by John imitating the Chaldee not in respect of any such scholasticall sense but because he doth reveale and make knowne the will of God to us so the union of the humane nature and the divine in one person though learned men give many examples yet none come up to the full resemblance And indeed if you could give the like instance it were not wonderfull or singular We conclude then that the Scriptures are the onely ladder whereby we climb up to these things and our understandings are of such a little stature that we must climb up into the tree of life the Scriptures to see Jesus The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The third Question concerning this naturall light is Whether it be sufficient for salvation For there are some that hold If any man of whatsoever Nation he be worship God according to the light of Nature and so serve him he may be saved Hence they have coined a distinction of a three-fold piety Judaica Christiana and Ethnica Therefore say they What Moses was to the Jewes and Christ to the Christians the same is Philosophy or the knowledge of God by nature to Heathens But this opinion is derogatory to the Lord Christ for onely by faith in his Name can we be saved as the Scripture speaketh And certainely if the Apostle argued that Christ died in vaine if works were joyned to him how much more if he be totally excluded It is true it seemeth a very hard thing to mans reason that the greater part of the world being Pagans and Heathens with all their infants should be excluded from heaven Hence because Vedelius a learned man did make it an aggravation of Gods grace to him to chuse and call him when so many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned this speech as being full of horridnesse a scoffing Remonstrant takes and sets it forth odiously in the Frontispiece of his Book But though our Reason is offended yet we must judge according to the way of the Scripture which makes Christ the onely way for salvation If
Martyr that in causes and effects there is a kinde of circle one increasing the other As the clouds arise from the vapours then these fall down again and make vapours only you must acknowledge one first cause which had not its being from the other and this is the Spirit of God which at first did work faith The second errour is of the Papists that maketh this difference Errour 2 between the Law and the Gospel That the same thing is called the Law while it is without the Spirit and when it hath the Spirit it is called the Gospel This is to confound the Law and Gospel and bring in Justification by works The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards These rocks avoided we come to consider the place and first I Errour 3 may demand Whether any under the Old Testament were made partakers of Gods Spirit or no If they were how came they by it There can be no other way said but that God did give his Spirit in all those publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Israelites so that although they did in some measure obey the Law yet they did it not by the power of the Law but by the power of Grace Again in the next place which hath alwaies much prevailed with me did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time We constantly maintain against the Papists that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance Therefore in Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb they were made partakers of Christ as well as we yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace as any thing else Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture some other way is to be thought upon about the exposition of these words Some there are therefore that doe understand by the Spirit the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit for this was reserved till the times of the Messias and by these miracles his doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expresly and Beza doth confesse that this is the principall scope of the Apostle though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit And if this should be the meaning it were nothing to our purpose Again thus it may be explained as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith so by the works of the Law is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law which the false Apostles taught namely that Christ was not enough to justification unlesse the works of the Law were put in as a cause also And if this should be the sense of the Text then it was cleare that the Galathians were not made partakers of Gods Spirit by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their seducers but before while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ and therefore it was their folly having begun in the spirit to end in the flesh This may be a probable interpretation But that which I shall stand upon is this The Jewes and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ consider Rom. 2. 17 18 19. or when they went furthest they joyned Christ and the observance of the Morall Law equally together for justification and salvation whereas the Law separated from Christ did nothing but accuse and condemne not being able to help the soul at all Therefore it was a vain thing in them to hope for any such grace or benefit as they did by it So that the Apostles scope is not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law which David and Moses did so much commend but against it in the sense as the Jewes did commonly doat upon it which was to have justification by it alone or at the best when they put the Law and Christ together Now both these we disclaime either that God doth use the Law for our justification or that of it self it is able to stirre up the least godly affection in us More places of Scripture are brought against this but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant Thus therefore I shall conclude this point acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodoxe men speak otherwise and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question but as yet that which I have delivered carrieth the more probability with me and I will give one text more which I have not yet mentioned and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moses is said to receive that he might give the Israelites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lively Oracles that is not verba vitae but verba viva vivificantia so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving life not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them but when we by grace are inabled to obey them God out of his mercy bestoweth eternall life Let me also adde this that I the rather incline to this opinion because I see the Socinians urging these places or the like where justification and faith is said to be by Christ and the Gospel that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see that these priviledges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant whereas it is plain that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David who lived under the Law as a schoole-master for the same kinde of justification as ours is And thus I come to another Question which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us and from whence they have their name and that is the abrogation of the Morall Law And howsoever I have already delivered many things that doe confirme the perpetuall obligation of it yet I did it not then so directly and professedly as now I shall The Text I have chosen being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon I will therefore open The Text opened the words and proceed as time shall suffer The Apostle Paul having laid down in verses preceding the nature of justification so exactly that we may finde all the causes efficient meritorious formall instrumentall and finall described as also the consequent of this truth which is the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what we doe he draweth a conclusion or inference ver 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively A man is justified by faith the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all equivalent with the Apostle And then to prevent all errours and cavils he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works And this proposition he doth extend to the Jewes and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God
of Israel Yea if wee would speake exactly and strictly the bookes of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb. 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament hee doth not meane the writings or bookes but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant 2. In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not medle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore wee see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore wee have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinckled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that hee may establish them to be a people unto himselfe and that hee may be a God unto them Againe you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his waies And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plaine the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle calls it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the bookes and writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian calls the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Onely the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodoxe and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus That it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing onely as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secundary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact 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 Epistles 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 righteousness of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but wee find this in effect Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the
from the Church Rivet calls them Furores Antinomorum In the first place awe thy heart with a feare against errours in 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damne thee doctrine as that which may damne thee as well as an open grosse sin Consider that place Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very grosse and doe exclude from the Kingdome of Heaven and that hee takes heresies there in a religious consideration is plaine because it 's made to differ from seditions strifes and variances Neither doe thou please thy selfe in that Question What is Heresie Tu Haereticus mihi ego tibi for the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evill doctrine and there the Apostle calls evill doctrine evill deeds 2. Look to all the places of Scripture as well as some onely That 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of is a perpetuall fault among the Antinomians they onely pitch upon those places where Christ and his grace is spoken of but not of those Texts where duties are commanded especially those places of Scripture where the Law of God is wonderfully commended for the many reall benefits that come by it where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated Lex Dei in aeternum manet vel implenda in damnatis vel impleta in beatis said Luther What a curb would it be unto this errour if they would consider with what an holy passion and zeale the Apostle doth deny that hee destroyeth the Law making this very objection to himselfe Doe we then make void the Law God forbid Now can we think that the Apostle who in the third Chapter to the Romans doth so vehemently deny that he destroyeth the Law should so much forget himselfe as in the fourth Chapter to abolish it No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction 3. Doe not affect applause among people as having found some 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people new nigher way about Christ and grace then others have I have observed this itching humour in the Antinomian Sermons printed where they will call upon their hearers to mark it may be they shall heare that which they have not heard before when the thing is either false or if it be true is no more then ordinarily is taught by others But now when men desire to be applauded in the world they suggest to their inward disciples as if they had found out some new unheard thing and their followers broach it abroad and so they come to be exalted Thus they doe like Psaphon the Libyan It 's reported of him that he kept ten tame birds at home and taught them to sing Magnus deus Psaphon and when he had done so he let these birds flye into the woods and mountaines where all the other birds learned the same song of them which the Libyans perceiving and thinking it no plot but a divine accident decreed to sacrifice to Psaphon and to put him in the number of their gods 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 4. Doe thou diligently study fundamentalls and the principles of Religion As the childe groweth crooked for not being well looked to at first and many errours do now spread themselves because men are not well catechised They build without a foundation It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiasticall Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion It was a wise speech of Aristides who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore answered Propound to day and I will answer to morrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly but take time to be diligent and considering 5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion that differeth 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion from the learned and godly be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it The Apostle giveth a good rule Rom. 14. Hast thou faith have it to thy selfe He doth not there command a man to equivocate or dissemble and deny a truth but not needlesly to professe it when it will be to the offence of others Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their owne accord to the Heathen Magistrates professing themselves Christians whereby they were put to death hath a good and elegant speech Confiteri nos magis voluit quà m profiteri he doth confesse that doth it being asked and demanded he doth professe that doth it out of his owne free accord 6. Consider that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace grace and Christ For he sets up free grace and Christ not who names it often in his Book or in the Pulpit but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it Now who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two i. Who urgeth no use of the Law who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin who denieth humiliation or he who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects Certainly this later will much more in heart and reall affections set up free grace FINIS THE TABLE A. THe Law abolished as a Covenant not as a Rule Page 204 The Law abrogated to beleevers in six particulars p. 209. 210. 211 Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremoniall Law which agree not to the morall p. 213 Six abuses of the Law p. 16. 17. 18. 19 Conversion and Repentance are our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace p. 97 Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit p. 107 Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturalls or supernaturalls answered in two Positions p. 129 Whether Adam needed Christs help ibid p. 130. Whether God required lesse of Adam then us p. 135. Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience though not amorem mercenarium p. 13 What help the Angels had by Christ p. 130 Calvines two Reasons why Angels needed Christs mediation ibid. Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed p. 86 Foure limitations concerning those antecedaneous works ibid. The first Antinomian p. 38 Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted p. 234. 236 The Antinomian why most inexcusable p. 43 The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it a contradiction p. 206 The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbeleevers as well as beleevers p. 208 The opinion of the
grosse sinnes for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sinne 3. The sinne against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said The bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sinne Now if the Jewes would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sinne they could not have done it I reply What if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himselfe to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sinne Why doth he Isai 1. call upon Jerusalem to repent of her whoredomes murders saying If their sinnes were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole boxe of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs bloud cleansing from all sinne I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he meane it universally They were to confesse their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himself Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezek. 16. where God speakes to the Church that while she was in her bloud he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speakes there of the Church of the Jewes as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isai 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Jewes before God called them Did the Jewes first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sinnes then all those arguments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our own righteousnesse c. It seemeth the Jewes under the Old Testament might doe all these things without blame A Jew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will doe something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we are enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Jewes Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here medle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their 5. That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by its own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unlesse the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs bloud at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himself from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it onely is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I aske whether God did not justifie David and the godly in those dayes from all eternity as they speake and if hee did why should not all their sinnes be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sinnes pardoned in the like manner In the meane while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sinnes done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the Old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as wee God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours If God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say Wee may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foule upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and hee must necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a
perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore hee is called a Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I dony that even under the Gospel that all sinnes are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sinnes are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose wee pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meere declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification The forenamed Authour hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTURE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of workes Nay but by the law of faith WEe have confuted the false differences and now come to lay downe the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall onely substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into its opposite Species but of the subject according to its severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of workes and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousnesse unto the Jewes that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace and the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Jewes did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacraments but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jewes and Gentiles did eye and looke to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1 Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old of perspicuity and clearnesse in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night-time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summe of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda speranda facienda Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved 1. It is so for the credenda they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a veile upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also 2. For the speranda for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ onely to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called ecclesia but never synagoge and the meeting of the Jewes called alwaies synagoge but never ecclesia doth suppose that the Jewes were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called synagoge although Cameron Praelect de eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstaine from the word synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporall and carnall yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins obseruation shewing that the Jewes should first be allured by temporall mercies and afterwards the Christians by spirituall As saith he first that which is animall and then that which is spirituall The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus wee may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animall was first and then that which is spirituall Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet wee see David making God his portion and professing that hee hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meere outward mercies These good things promised to the Jewes were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soule and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernell and the shell but the Jewes for the most part looked onely to the outward Hence Christ when hee opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernell to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now 3. For the facienda although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in morall things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and cleare as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ