this was wholly from Moses and could be no other way And this is further evident by James chap. 2. 8 10. in his Epistle which is generall and so to Gentiles converted as well as to the Jews Now mark those two expressions v. 8. If you fulfill the royall Law according to the Scriptures that is of Moses where the second Table containeth our love to our neighbour and then v. 10. He that said Do not commit adultery said also Do not kill where you see he makes the Argument not in the matter but in the Author who was God by Moses to the people of Israel And if you say Why should these Commandments reach to them I answer because as it is to be shewed in answering the objections against this truth the Jews and we are looked upon as one people Observe that place 1 Cor. 10. The Apostle writing to the Corinthians saith Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and sea c. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians but only because since they beleeved they were looked upon as one The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Sabbath day This is a full Argument to me that the Morall Law given by Moses doth binde us Christians for supposing that opinion which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox that the Sabbath day is perpetuall and that by vertue of the fourth Commandment we cannot then but gather that the Commandments as given by Moses do binde us For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materiae by reason of the matter and ratione ministerii by reason of the ministry for the seventh day cannot binde from the matter of it there being nothing in nature why the seventh rather then the fifth should oblige but only from the meer Command of God for that day and yet it will not follow that we are bound to keep the Jewish seventh day as the Learned shew in that controversie Now then those that deny the Law as given by Moses must needs conclude that we keep the Sabbath day at the best but from the grounds of the New-Testament and not from the fourth Command at all And howsoever it be no argument to build upon yet all Churches have kept the morall Law with the Preface to it and have it in their Catechismes as supposing it to belong unto us And when those prophane opinions and licentious doctrines came up against the Sabbath Day did not all learned and sound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandments Therefore that distinction of theirs The Morall Law bindes as the Law of Nature but not as the Law of Moses doth no wayes hold for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature in regard of the determinate time but hath its morality and perpetuity from the meere positive Commandment of God The fourth Argument from Reason that it is very incongruous to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetuall duty How probable can it be that God delivering the Law by Moses should intend a temporary obligation only when the matter is perpetualy As if it had been thus ordered You shall have no other gods but till Moses his time You shall not murder or commit adultery but till his ministry lasteth and then that obligation must cease and a new obligation come upon you Why should we conceive that when the matter is necessary and perpetuall God would alter and change the obligations None can give a probable reason for any such alteration Indeed that they should circumcise or offer sacrifices till Moses ministry lasted onely there is great reason to be given thus Austin well answered Porphyrius that objected God was worshipped otherwayes in the Old-Testament then in the New That is no matter saith Austin if that which be worshipped be the true object though it be worshipped divers waves when appointed by him no more then when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages The fifth Argument If the Law by Moses do not binde us then the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not also belong unto us For this you must know that Moses in other places doth explane this Law and Davids Psalmes and Solomons Proverbs as also the Prophesies of the Prophets so farre as they are Morall are nothing but explications of the Morall Law Now what a wide doore will here be open to overthrow the Old-Testament If I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. Set your hearts upon these words which I testifie to you this day because it is your life c. to urge Christians to keep the Commandments of the Lord it may be replyed What is that to us we have nothing to do with Moses The matter indeed doth belong to us as it is in the New-Testament but as it is there written so we have nothing to do with it And by this meanes all our Texts and proofes which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected And therefore Dominicus à Soto who is among the Papists for the negative expresly saith lib. 2. de Just jure quaest 5. Art 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the Old-Testament unto Christians as in respect of the obliging force of it This is plainly to overthrow the Old-Testament Now let us consider what are the chiefest Arguments which they bring for the support of this opinion that the Law as given by Moses doth not binde Christians And first they urge the Preface I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of Egypt This doth not belonge to us because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt say they further The temporall Promise to keep the Law doth not belong to us therefore Ephes chap. 6 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandment with Promise he doth not keep to the Promise particularly that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God shall give thee but speakes generally first by adding something that it may be well with thee which was not in the first Promise then secondly by detracting saying only that thou mayest live long upon the earth in generall Now to the Preface some answer thus That we may be said literally to be in Egypt and they goe upon this ground that we are made one with the people of the Jewes and they bring the eleventh of the Romanes to prove this where the Gentiles are said to be graffed in so that they become of the same stock And it is plane that the Beleevers are Abrahams seed and then by this interpretation whatsoever mercy was vouchsafed unto them we are to account it as ours This cannot well be rejected but yet I shall not pitch upon this Others therefore they say That this bondage was typicall of our spirituall bondage and the deliverance out of it was typicall of our deliverance from Hell But this is not so literall an interpretation as I desire though I think
dead carkasse his living faith to dead unbelief his humility to loathsome pride see what a conclusion he makes I thank God through Jesus Christ It 's true many times the people of God out of the sense of their sinne are driven off from Christ but this is not the Scriptures direction That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt peace in Christ for thy terrour And in this consideration it is that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law and about sinne All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel so as if the discovering of the one did quite drive from the other And this is the reason why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ taking up every crumb that falls from his table they are Christs to themselves and self-saviours I deny not but the preaching of Christ and about grace may also make us prize grace and Christ but such is our corruption that all is little enough Let me adde these cautions 1. It 's of great consequence in what sense we use the Word Law He that distinguisheth well teacheth well Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points and indeed the reason why some can so hardly endure the word Law is because they attend to the use of the word in English or the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Lex as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle which understand it a strict rule only of things to be done and that by way of meere command But now the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth comprehend more for that doth not only signifie strictly what is to be done but it denoteth largely any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept and hence it is that the Apostle calleth it The law of faith which in some sense would be a contradiction and in some places where the word Law is used absolutely it 's much questioned whether he mean the Law or the Gospel and the reason why he calls it a law of faith is not as Chrysostome would have it because hereby he would sweeten the Gospel and for the words sake make it more pleasing to them but happily in a meere Hebraisme as signifying that in generall which doth declare and teach the will of God The Hebrewes have a more strict word for precept and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some say this also sometimes signifieth a Promise Psal 133. 3. There the Lord commanded a blessing i. e. promised so John 12. 50. his commandement i. e. his promise is life everlasting So then if we would attend to the Hebrew words it would not so trouble us to heare that it is good But yet the use of the word Law is very generall sometimes it signifieth any part of the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law Ye are gods And that is in the Psalmes Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament sometimes the Law and the Psalmes are distinguished sometimes it is used for the ceremoniall law only Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law only as Galat. 5. Against such there is no law sometimes it is used for that whole oiconomy and peculiar dispensation of Gods worship unto the Jewes in which sense it is said to be untill John but grace and truth by Jesus Christ sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jewes as without Christ And thus the Apostle generally in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians Indeed this is a dispute between Papists and us In what sense the Law is taken for the Papists would have it understood onely of the ceremoniall law But we answer that the beginning of the dispute was about the observation of those legall ceremonies as necessary to salvation But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis and sheweth that not only those ordinances but no other works may be put in Christs roome Therefore the Antinomian before he speaks any thing against or about the Law he must shew in what sense the Apostle useth it Sometimes it is taken strictly for the five books of Moses yea it is thought of many that book of the Law so often mentioned in Scripture which was kept with so much diligence was onely that book called Deuteronomy and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandements Now the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense and pleadeth for it in another 2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God The Law is only light to the understanding the Spirit of God must circumcise the heart to love it and delight in it otherwise that is true of Gods Law which Aristotle 2. Polit. cap. 2. said of all humane Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's not able of it self to make good and honest Citizens This is a principle alwayes to be carried along with you for the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spirituall life and the Law is part of this Word of God This I proved before nay should the Morall Law be quite abolished yet it would not be for this end because the Spirit of God did not use it as an instrument of life for we see all sides grant that circumcision and the sacraments are argued against by the Apostle as being against our Salvation and damnable in their own use now yet in the old Testament those sacraments of Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb were spirituall meanes of faith as truly as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are It is true there is a difference in the degree of Gods grace by them but not in the truth and therefore our Divines do well consute the Papists who hold those sacraments onely typicall of ours and not to be really exhibitive of grace as these are in the New Testament Therefore if the Apostles arguing against the Morall Law would prove it no instrument of Gods Spirit for our good the same would hold also in Circumcision and all those sacraments and therefore at least for that time they must grant it a help to Christ and grace as well as Circumcision was If you say Why then doth the Apostle argue against the works of the Morall Law I answer Because the Jewes rested in them without Christ and it is the fault of our people they turn the Gospel into the Law and we may say Whosoever seeks to be saved by his Baptisme he falls off from Christ 3. To doe a thing out of obedience to the Law and yet by love and delight doe not oppose one another About this I see a perpetuall mistake To lead a man by the Law is slavish it 's servile say they a Beleever is carried by
love he needs no law and I shall shew you Chrysostome hath some such hyperbolicall expressions upon the words following The Law is not put for the righteous But this is very weak to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together for the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth Take an instance in Adam While he stood he did obey out of love and yet because of the command also so the Angels are ministring spirits and do obey the commandments of God otherwise the Apostate Angels could not have sinned and yet they are under a law though doing all things in love We may illustrate it by Moses his mother You know she was hired and commanded by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse Moses which was her own childe now she did this out of love to Moses her childe yet did obey Pharaeh's daughters commandement upon her also so concerning Christ there was a commandement laid upon Christ to fulfill the Law for us yet he did it out of love It is disputed Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever the Arrians from the grant of this did inferre Christs absolute inferiority to the Father yet our Orthodox Divines doe conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it Act. 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my Father hath commanded me so I you John 15. 10. If you keep my commandements and abide in love c. And indeed if it were not a commandement it could not be called an obedience of Christ for that doth relate to a command Now this I inferre hence that to doe a thing out of obedience to a command because a command doth not inferre want of love although I grant that the commandement was not laid upon Christ as on us either to direct him or quicken him Besides all the people of God have divers relations upon which their obedience lyeth they are Gods servants and that doth imply obedientiam servi though not obedientiam servilem the obedience of a servant but not servile obedience Again a Beleever may look to the reward and yet have a spirit of love how much rather look to the command of God A godly man may have amorem mercedis though not amorem mercenarium If God in his Covenant make a Promise of reward the eie unto that is suteable and agreeable unto the Covenant and therefore cannot be blame-worthy And lastly there is no godly man but he hath in part some unwillingness to good things and therefore needs the Law not only to direct but to exhort and goad forward Even as I said the tamed horse needeth a spur as well as the unbroken colt 4. Though Christ hath obeyed the Law fully yet that doth not exempt us from our obedience to it for other ends then he did it And I think that if the Antinomian did fully inform himself in this thing there were an agreement for we all ought to be zealous against those Pharisaicall and Popish practices of setting up any thing in us though wrought by the grace of God as the matter of our justification But herein they do not distinguish or well argue The works of the Law do not justifie therefore they are needlesse or not requisite for say they if Christ hath fully obeyed the righteousnesse of the Law and that is made ours therefore it is not what ours is but what Christs is This would be a good consequence if we were to obey the Law for the same end Christ did but that is farre for us I have heard indeed some doubt whether the maintaining of Christs active obedience imputed to us doth not necessarily imply Antinomianisme but of that more hereafter onely let them lay a parallel with Christs passive obedience He satisfied the curse and threatning of the Law and thereby hath freed us from all punishment yet the Beleevers have afflictions for other ends so do we the works of Gods Law for other ends then Christ did them A fifth caution or limitation shall be this to distinguish between a Beleever and his personall acts For howsoever the Law doth not curse or condemne him in regard of his state yet those particular sins he commits it condemnes them and they are guilty of Gods wrath though this guilt doth not redound upon the person Therefore it is a very wilde comparison of one that a man under grace hath no more to doe with the Law then an English-man hath with the lawes of Spain or Turkie For howsoever every Beleever be in a state of grace so that his person is justified yet being but in part regenerated so farre as his sins are committed they are threatned and condemned in him as well as in another for there is a simple guilt of sin and a guilt redundant upon the person 6. That the Law is not therefore to be decryed because we have no power to keep the Law For so we have no power to obey the Gospel It is an expression an Antinomian useth The Law saith he speaketh to thee if troubled for sin Doe this and live Now this is as if a Judge should bid a malefactor If you will not be hanged take all England and carry it upon your shoulders into the West Indies What comfort were this Now doth not the Gospel when it bids a man beleeve speak as impossible a thing to a mans power It 's true God doth not give such a measure of grace as is able to fulfill the Law but we have faith enough evangelically to justifie us But that is extraneous to this matter in hand It followes therefore that the Law taken most strictly and the Gospel differ in other considerations then in this 7. They doe not distinguish between that which is primarily and per se in the Law and that which is occasionally It cannot be denied but the Decalogue requireth primarily a perfect holiness as all lawes require exactnesse but yet it doth not exclude a Mediatour The Law saith Doe this and live and it doth not say None else shall doe this for thee For if so then it had been injustice in God to have given us a Christ I therefore much wonder at one who in his book speaks thus The Law doth not only deprive us of comfort but it will let no body else speak a word of comfort because it is a rigid keeper and he confirmeth it by that place Gal. 3. 23. But how short this is appeareth 1. Because what the Apostle calleth the Law here he called the Scripture in generall before 2. He speaketh it generally of all under that form of Moses his regiment so that the Fathers should have no comfort by that means Use 1. Of instruction How dangerous an errour it is to deny the Law for is it good and may it be used well then take we heed of rejecting it What because it is not good for justification is it
if Adam had told a lye or the like it had been a sin as well as to eate of the forbidden fruit 3. The naturall impression of it in us We have it by nature it 's not a superadded work of God to put this into us This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus who out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God doth labour to shew that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us and that wee have none of these by nature in us And a godly man in his Book of Temptations holdeth the same opinion Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion but he goeth upon a false supposition that the Apostle his scope is to compare a Gentile supposed onely to doe the Law and not asserted to doe it before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law but not a doer of it therefore to debase the Jew he saith the Apostle speaketh conditionally to this purpose If an Heathen should keep the Law though he be not circumcised yet he would be preferred before you not saith he that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such doe and therefore presseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood and is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gentiles c. But his supposition is false for the Apostle's scope is to shew that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemne him because hee hath a law in himselfe as appeareth verse 12. As for the other consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Erasmus render it cum fecerint yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood as well as the Subjunctive It cannot therefore be true which hee saith that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature that if they were true it would necessarily justifie all Pelagianisme I shall not speak of his many arguments against naturall principles and knowledge of a God for he doth in effect at last yeeld to it 4. The extent of it And here it 's very hard to measure out the bounds of the law of Nature for some have judged that to be condemned by the law of Nature which others have thought the law of Nature approveth so true is that of Tertullian Legem Naturae opiniones suas vocant They call their opinions the law of Nature There are foure waies of bounding this law 1. Some make it those generall things wherein man and beast agree as defence of it self and desire of life but by this meanes that of naturall honesty and righteousnesse would be excluded for a beast is not capable of any sin or obligation by a law And howsoever that be much disputed upon Why God would have the beast killed that killed a man yet to omit the thoughts of many about it that was not because a beast could be tyed by a law but God to shew the horridnesse of the fact would have the very instrument punished 2. Some bound it by the custome of Nations that is jus Gentium but that is so diversified that a sin with some was a vertue with others 3. Some doe bind it by reason in every man but this is very uncertaine and one mans reason is contrary to anothers and one mans conscience is larger then anothers even as it is with measures in divers countries though they have the same name as a bushell c. yet they are different in quantity one is larger then another Lastly Others bound it by the will of God declared and manifested first to Noah in seven precepts and afterwards to Moses in the ten Commandements but these extend the law of Nature not onely to first principles but conclusions also deduced from thence 5. The obligation of it when the law of Nature doth bind And that is from God the authour of it God onely is under no law Every beleever though justified by Christ is under the Morall Law of Moses as also the law of Nature but now this law of Nature doth not so properly bind as it's mans reason or conscience as that it is the Vicegerent of God or a command from him and thus Cain by the law of Nature found a tye upon him not to sin and guilt because he did sin in murdering his brother although there was no Morall Law as yet given It is true indeed our Divines doe well reprove the Papists for calling all that time from Adam to Moses a state or law of Nature and this the Papists doe that therefore to offer sacrifice unto God may be proved from the law of Nature whereas those sacrifices being done in faith had the word of God otherwise we were bound still to offer Lambs or Kids to God which they deny 6. The perpetuity of this obligation This Law can never be abrogated And herein we may demand of the Antinomian Whether the law of Nature doe bind a beleever or no Whether he be bound to obey the dictates of his naturall conscience Suppose a beleever hath his naturall conscience dictating to him This sin he may not doe is he not obliged hereunto not onely from the matter for that he grants but as it is a law and command of God implanted in his soule I know there is a difference between the law of Nature and the ten Commandements as may be shewed hereafter but yet they agree in this that they are a rule immutable and of perpetuall obligation Therefore think not that because he dyed to free you from the curse of the Law that therefore you are freed from the obedience unto the law naturall or delivered by Moses To deny this is to deny that a beleever is bound to obey the sure dictates of a naturall conscience I know we are not alwayes bound to follow what conscience suggests for that is obscured and darkened but I speak of those dictates which are naturally known Other particulars as The insufficiency of it to direct in worship as also to save men I do put off and make application of what hath been delivered Use 1. Of Instruction against the Antinomian who must needs overthrow the directive and obligative force of the law of Nature as well as that of Moses Doth not even Nature teach you saith the Apostle Now if a man may not care for Moses teaching need he care for Nature teaching It is true I told you sometimes they grant the Law to be a rule but then afterwards they speak such things as are absolutely inconsistent with it There were some as Wendelinus reports Swencfeldians that held a man was never truly mortified till he had put out all sense of conscience for sinne if his conscience troubled him that was his imperfection he was not mortified enough I should doe the Antinomians wrong if I should say they deliver such things in their books but let them consider
if the Antinomists in all their Books and Sermons while they set up grace and the Gospel would make to themselves this objection with Paul Do we then make void the Law God forbid Certainly if you take away the condemning power and the commanding power of the Law there will not so much remain of it as did of Jezebels corps when the dogs had gnawn it Therefore stand fast indeed in the liberty of the Gospel but study again and again whether that be Gospel-liberty or prophane Licence that thou pleadest for certainly he that sets up the Gospel in a scripture way and not a fancy-way will go no further then the bounds of the Scripture do not use Gospel-grace as a cloak for thy more secure and loose walking I tell thee there is a great danger in those expressions I have had enough of the Law the time was I dared not omit time of prayer I was strict on the Sabbath day and in all family duties but now I understand my liberty better Oh know this is a Gospel of thy own making Free-grace of thy own minting I deny not but that the people of God may by the Devil be kept among the Tombs as that Demoniack was in sad thoughts and slavish fears which are opposite to the promise I grant also that a Minister may as unseasonably press the Law upon some humbled Christians as if the Samaritan had taken salt instead of oil and poured it into the wounds of that man of Jericho But for all this the unskilfulness of the Physitian may not derogate from the medicine and as there is a time when the Law may be unseasonably preached so also there may be a time when the promises should not be prest 2. Then is the Gospel or grace set up contrary to the Law when Christians are wholly taken off from humiliation for sin or from the threatnings that are in the Law What a dangerous expression is that of an Antinomian that the Law hath no more to do with a believer then the law of Spain or France with an Englishman There is nothing more ordinary even in the New-Testament then to awaken Believers with sad and severe threatenings Take heed therefore lest that condition which thou so blessest thy self in by Gospel light be not worse and more dangerous then that wherein thou groanedst under the Law I speak not this as if the people of God ought not to seek for a spirit of adoption and to strive for an Evangelicall temper which certainly is most heavenly and holy but to take heed of temptations and being drunk with this sweet wine Let therefore from hence both Ministers and people make an harmonious accord of the Law and Gospel in their practical observations If on the Mount of transfiguration Christ was in glory and Moses in glory and yet both together without any opposition so may the Law be a glorious Law and the Gospel a glorious Gospel in thy use and to thy apprehension LECTVRE XVII EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. WE have already considered those historical Observations which are in the delivery of the Law and improved them to the dignity and excellency thereof I now come to the handling of those Questions which make much to the clearing of the truths about ithat are now doubted of And first of all it may be demanded To what purpose is this discourse about the Law given by Moses Are we Jews Doth that belong to us Hath not Christ abolished the Law Is not Moses with his Ministery now at an end It is therefore worth the inquiry Whether the ten Commandments as given by Moses do belong to us Christians or no And in the answering of this Question I will lay down some Propositions by way of Preface and then bring arguments for the affirmative First therefore Though it should be granted that the Morall Law as given by Moses doth not belong to us Christians yet the doctrine of the Antinomians would not hold for there are some learned and solid Divines as Zanchy and Rivet and many Papists as Suarez and Medina which hold the Law as dilivered by Moses not to belong to us and yet are expresly against Antinomists for they say that howsoever the Law doth not binde under that notion as Mosaicall yet it binds because it is confirmed by Christ so that although the first obligation ceaseth and we have nothing to do with Moses now yet the second obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did bind because of Moses so that whatsoeveer is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New-Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old-Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Laws not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very
it true Therefore in the third place I shall answer That there may be peculiar arguments that do belong to the Jewes why they should keep the Commandments and there are genarall ones that belong to all The generall arguments are I am the Lord thy God this belongs to us and then that peculiar argument may belong to them And this is no new thing to have a perpetuall duty pressed upon a people by some occasionall or peculiar motive Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God saith there by the Prophet that they shall no more say The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you see a speciall new argument may be brought for the generall duty And as for the particular temporall Promise I grant that did onely belong to them but Ideny the consequence that therefore the precept doth not for the Scripture useth divers arguments to the obedience of the same Command Davids Psalmes for the most part and some of Paul's Epistles as Philemon c. were written upon particular occasions yet the matter of them doth still belong to us The secoud Argument is that If the Law did oblige us as given by Moses then it did the Gentiles and Heathens also and so the Heathens were bound to those Commandements as well as the Jewes but that is not so therefore Paul Rom. 2. speaketh of the Gentiles without this Law and as those that shall be judged without it Now this may be answered It doth not follow that the Law by Moses must presently binde the Gentiles but when promulged and made known to them as at this time Infidels and Pagans are not bound to beleeve in Iesus Christ but if the doctrine of Christ were promulged to them they were then bound And I make no question but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moses his ministery to enquire after the true God and to worship him in the Jewish way so far as they could Thus we read of the Eunuch coming up to Jerusalem to worship And certainly if a whole Nation had then been converted either they must have worshipped God according to their own institution or God would have revealed unto them some different way of worshipping him from the Jews or else they were bound so far as they could for the Ceremoniall worship bound them no otherwaies to worship God in the Jewish way then appointed by him The Law then given by Moses did binde Gentiles as it was made known to them Thus the stranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath though that be meant of a stranger that had received their religion yea Nehem. 13. 19. Nehemiah would not suffer the Tyrians that were strangers who did not submit to the Jewish Law to pollute the Sabbath Now to all this that hath been said you must take this limitation That the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jewes as becoming the dispensation of the Old Testament but yet the giving of the Law it self in the obliging power of it doth belong to us We all acknowledge that the Old Testament had a peculiar administration from the New it was fuller of terrour and so did gender more to bondage then the New Hence some say that the Law was given on Mount Sinai which it was so called from Seneh a bramble bush the bush God appeared in the Mountaine being full of bramble bushes representing unto us the terrible and pricking power of the Law Use To take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses lest at the same time we reject the whole Old-Testament for it is said of the Prophets as well as the Law that they are till John and then why should they limit the Law to Moses his hands more then others Why should they not say The Law as by David as by Isaiah and Ieremiah doth not binde And if you say they in other places speake of Christ so doth Moses also as our Saviour expresly saith So that I see not how an Antinomian can follow his principle but he must needs cast off the Old-Testament except it be in what it is propheticall of Christ LECTVRE XVIII MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time c. But I say unto you c. THe Law as you have heard may be considered either absolutely as a Rule or relatively as a Covenant We are handling of it in the first consideration and have proved that as it was delivered by Moses it doth belong to us Christians I shall now handle the Perfection of it and labour to shew that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses And this Question will be very profitable partly against the Antinomians partly the Papists and lastly the Socinians as will appeare in the handling of it That therefore I may the better come to my matter intended take notice in the generall that these words are part of Christs Sermon upon the Mount so that as the Law was first given upon a Mount so also it is explained and interpreted by Christ upon a Mount And in this Sermon is observable first that Christ begins with the end of actions Blessednesse for so Morall Philosophy which is practicall doth also begin Secondly he describes the Subjects who shall be made partakers of this and they are described by severall properties In the next place as some think ver 13. he instructs the Apostles about their peculiar Office Ye are salt not honey as one observeth which is bitter to wounds Ye are light which is also offensive to sore eyes In the next place he instructs the people though some make this only spoken to the Disciples and that first about the substance of the Precepts what duties are to be done against the false interpretations of the Pharisees and Scribes and in the next Chapter he sheweth the end Why we do the good things God requireth of us and that is for the glory of God which ought to consume all other ends as the Sunne puts out the light of the fire and the first substantiall duty of the Commandments which he instanceth in is this in my text Now before I raise the Doctrine I must answer some Questions as First What is meant by these words It hath been said by themof old For here is some difference It is understood by some in the dative case thus It hath been said to them of old and hereby our Saviour would comprehend the Auditors or Hearers that have been heretofore Others do understand it equivalent unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did answer the Ablative case among the Latines and so it seemeth our Interpreters take it and thus others that are Orthodox but
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-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
is a contradiction This is a rock that the adversary hath daily refuge unto The Law saith the Antinomian in the matter of it so farre as I know was never denyed to be the rule according to which a beleever is to walk and live Therefore I take the contrary imputation to be an impudent slander Asser of grace pag. 170. But to reply if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule how can they shelter themselves from their own argument for if the matter oblige then when a beleever walketh not according to his duty he sinneth and to sinne the curse is due so that this evasion will no wayes helpe them for still an obligation or bond lyeth upon them which if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law of God Again to say the matter of the Law bindeth but yet not as a Law is a meere contradiction for what is a Law but such an object held forth by the command and will of a superiour Then I demand whether love to God being the object or matter held forth have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should binde According to the Antinomian assertion it should be true that love to God should binde us because the matter it selfe is good but nob ecause God willeth us to love him Nay they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver that such things should be obeyed or avoided And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding and not the Law it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good as To love God to honour parents but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution as Keeping of the Lords Day there we must say that the Law binds as a Law and not meerly from the matter of the Law 5. The Law is no more abrogated to a beleever under the Old-Testament then to one under the New This assertion will much discover the falsenesse of the adversaries opinion for they carry it as if the Law were abrogated only to the beleevers under the Gospell Now how can this ever be made good for either they must deny that there were any beleevers under the Old-Testament or if there were then they are freed from the Law as much as any now Indeed if you take the Law for the whole administration of the Covenant in the Old Testament we grant that it was pedagogicall and more servile so that a beleever under the Old-Testament did not meet with such cleare and evident dispensations of love as a beleever under the Gospel yet in respect of justification and salvation the Law was the same to them as to us and to us as to them We do not deny but that the administration of the later covenant is farre more glorious then that of the former and that we enjoy many priviledges which they did not then but whatsoever is necessary and essentiall to justification or salvation they were made partakers of them as well as we The ordinary resemblance of theirs and our happinesse is by those two spoken of Numb 13. 23. that bare upon the staffe the cluster of grapes from the land of Canaan if then we speake of the Law in regard of the essentiall parts of it which are directing commanding threatning promising life upon perfect obedience These are either still equally in power or else equally abrogated unto all beleevers whether under the Old or New Testament Let them therefore consider whether the arguments against beleevers subjection under the New Testament be not also equally as strong against those that are under the Old Therefore it is wild Divinity of an Antinomian in Chap. 6. of the Honey-combe of free justification who makes three different estates of the Church one under the Law and another under John Baptist and a third under the Gospel Now he compareth these together and sheweth how we under the Gospel exceed those of the Law that were godly and among other things there are two notorious falshoods as first That God indeed saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in those of the New But how absurd and contradictory to the Author himself is this assertion For was not that place which they so much urge God seeth not iniquity in Jacob spoken of the Church in the Old Testament And besides if the godly were then in Christ doth it not necessarily follow by his principles that God must see no sinne in them This I bring not as if there were any truth in that opinion of God his seeing no sinne in beleevers whether of the Old or New Testament but only to manifest their absurd contradictions The second difference he makes is That God seeing sinne in those of the Old Testament did therefore punish them and afflict them for sinne but he doth not this under the Gospel Hereupon he sheweth how Moses for a word was strucken with death and so Jonah Uzzah Eli these had sudden punishments upon them Hence also saith he came there terrible faimines upon them Now who seeth not how weak and absurd these arguments are For doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of those under the New Testament that some were siok and some did sleep and that they were judged of the Lord were not Ananias and Sapphira stricken dead immediately Are there not famines pestilence and the bloudy warre upon men under the Gospel Besides these assertions are contradictions to themselves for if their arguments from Gods Law and from Christ prove the quite taking away of sin and the punishments of it then it holdeth as firmly for all beleevers as for some 6. The arguments of the Antinomian for the greater part which they urge do not only overthrow the use of it to beleevers but also unbeleevers This also is good to be attended unto for the Apostle in many places where he speaks of the Law as a Schoolmaster and the continuance of it for a time doth not speake comparatively of a beleever with an unbeleever but of the state of the Gospel and the state of the Old Testament so that as a wicked man may not circumcise or take up the sacrifices so neither may he use the Morall Law as commonly the Jewes did which was as distinct from Christ and as if that of it self were able alone to save Therefore I wonder why the Antinomians bring many of their arguments to prove that a beleever is freed from the Law for certainly most of those places will inferre that unbeleevers also under the New Testament are for the Apostle for the most part doth argue against that state of the Church and administrations that were used formerly as in the 1 Cor. 3. when the Apostle makes the administration of the Law to be death and of the Gospell life Here he speaketh not of particular persons
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
of Christ were the same in kinde with the righteousness of works differing only gradually as an infant and a grown man for if so the Apostle would have said working and not beleeving It is a great skill in Divinity to amplifie this righteousness of faith without works so as neither the Papist or the Antinomian may incourage themselves thereby but of that in some other place As you take notice of the subject Beleever so the universality every one which doth take in both Jew and Gentile Therefore the Jew could not or ought not to think that those externall Rites and observations could bring them to a true righteousness Lastly consider in the Text for what end Christ is thus the perfection of the Law and that is for righteousness The proper seat of handling this is in the doctrine of Justification only let me briefly answer a Question made by some Whether the righteousness of faith or that we have by Christ be the same in nature with the righteousness of works and of the Law Stapleton saith They must needs be one because the Law will direct to no other righteousness then that of its own It it true the Law strictly taken will not properly and per se direct to any righteousness but that which the Law requireth yet by accident and indirectly it may yea as it was given by Moses it did directly and properly intend Christ though not primarily as some think but finding us unable to attain to its own righteousness did then lead us unto Christ Yet these two righteousnesses are divers rather then contrary unless in respect of justification and so indeed its impossible to be justified by both those waies otherwise they are both together in the same subject yea a righteousness of faith doth necessarily draw along with it in the same subject a righteousness of works though it be imperfect and so insufficient to justifie Use Is Christ the end of the Law for righteousness Then let the beleever bless and praise God for providing a righteousness and such a righteousness for him How destitute and naked was thy condition Had justice taken thee by the throat and bid thee pay what thou owest thou couldst not have returned that answer Let me alone and I will pay thee all Neither Angels nor men could provide this righteousness for thee Dost thou thank God for providing clothes for thy body food for thy belly an house for habitation Oh above all thanke him that he hath provided a righteousness for thy soul Thou troubled soul because of sin thou thinkest with thy selfe Oh if I had no sin if I were guilty of no corruption how well were it O ye glorious Angels and Saints ye are happy because ye have a righteousness Why doest thou not consider that God hath found out for thee even for thee in this world a righteousness whereby thou art accepted of him Again consider it is such a righteousness that satisfieth and pleaseth God Thy holiness cannot content him for justification but that of Christ can As the light of the Stars and Moon cannot dispell totally the darkness of the night only the light of the Sun can do that LECTVRE XXIX MAT 5. 17. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandements and shall teach men so shall be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven OUr Saviour being to vindicate the Law from all corrupt glosses of the Pharisees he doth in the first place as Chrysostome thinketh remove the odium that might be cast upon him as if he did indeed destroy the Law for it was then generally received that only was Law which the Pharisees declared to be so And this he doth ver 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law The reason he giveth is from the perpetuall nature of the Law heaven and earth the whole world shall sooner fall into pieces then any tittle of that And the Prophets are here joyned to the Law not so much in regard of their predictions as because they were Interpreters of the Law The second reason is from that evill which shall befall him that doth breake it and here he nameth a two-fold Antinomianisme one in life and practise the other in doctrine That in practise is aggravated though it be one of the least commandments They are called least either because the Pharisees thought them so or else indeed because all the commands of God were not concerning duties of the same consequence The other in doctrine is expressed in those words And teach men so I cannot consent to Beza's interpretation making this teaching to be by example and life or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although as if the meaning were He that doth break in his practice my commandment although he do teach them in doctrine There is no necessity of offering such violence to the Text. But if we interpret it of doctrinall breaking it will very well agree with the Pharisees who made void the commandements of God by the doctrines of men The evill that shall befall such is in those words He shall be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven Called is put for is or be He shall be the least By Kingdom of heaven some understand that Kingdome of glory in heaven and by least meane nullus none he shall not at all enter into the Kingdome of heaven Others by Kingdom of heaven do understand the Church of God and so they express it when there shall be a reformation in the Church and truth should break forth which was presently to come to pass then those corrupt teachers who would poyson men should be discovered and then they should be least that is of no account even as it fell out to the Pharisees though for a while they were highly esteemed among men I forbeare to touch upon that Question hotly disputed with some Whether our Saviour doe in this discourse meane only the Morall Law or the Ceremoniall also as being not to my purpose That it is meant cheifly of the Morall Law appeareth by the instances which Christ giveth From the Text thus opened I observe That any doctrine which teacheth tho abrogation or dissolution of the Law is highly offensive unto God For the opening of this consider that the doctrines of men may either directly and with an open face overthrow the Law as the Marcionites and Manichees did or else interpretatively and more covertly and that is done three waies 1. when they make not the Law of God to be so full and exensiue in it's obligation as indeed it is and thus the Pharisees they made void the Law when they affirmed outward acts to be only sins and thus the Papists do in part when they make the Law no further to oblige then it is possible for us to keep it These doctrines doe in tantum though not in totum destroy the Law 2. When men hold such principles that will
trusting in the Law p. 21. 6. What is required to the essence of a godly man in reference to obedience p. 39. 7. Wherein are good works necessary p. 40. 41. 8. Whether the Law have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man p. 55. 9. How the Law is said to be written in mans heart p. 60. 10. Wherein the Law of Nature doth consist p. 62. 11. Of what use is the light of Nature p. 68. 12. Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to judge in matters of faith or to prescribe divine worship p. 73. 74. 13. Whether a man can by the light of Nature and by the consideration of the creatures come to know there is a God p. 76. 14. Whether the Masterie of the Trinitie and of the Incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature p. 79. 15. Whether the light of Nature be sufficient to salvation p. 80. 16. Whether that be true of the Papists which hold that the sacrifices the Patriarchs offered to God were by the meere light of Nature p. 81. 17. Whether originall sin can be found out by the meere light of Nature or whether it is onely a meere matter of faith that we are thus polluted p. 82. 18. What is the meaning of that grand rule of Nature which our Saviour repeateth That which you would not have other men doe to you doe not you to them p. 82. 83. 19. Whether the practice of the Apostles making all their goods common was according to the precept of Nature and so binding all to such a practice p. 83. 20. What a man cannot doe by the power of Nature p. 86. 87. 21. Whether there are any antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace p. 88. 22. Whether a man by the power of nature be able to work any good thing page 86. 87. 23. Why God would give a positive law to Adam beside the naturall law in his heart p. 106. 24. Whether the positive law to Adam would have obliged all his posterity p. 108. 25. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him when he did eat of the forbidden fruit p. 109. 26. Whether Adam was mortall before the eating of the forbidden fruit p. 110. 27. Whether upon this threatning Thou shalt die can be fixed that cursed opinion of the mortality of the whole man in soul as well as body p. 111. 28. Whether Image or Likenesse doe signifie the same thing p. 114. 29. Wherein doth this Image consist p. 115. 30. What are the properties of that righteousnesse and holinesse that was fixed in Adams heart p. 119. 31. Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam or no. p. 120. 32. Whether justifying faith was then in Adam or whether faith and repentance are now parts of that Image p. 120. 33. Whether the Image of God shall be restored to us in this life p. 121. 34. Whether God did enter into covenant with Adam p. 122. 35. How God can be said to covenant or enter into a promise with man p. 126. 36. Why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere absolute supreme way p. 127. 37. Whether there can be any such distinction made of Adam while innocent so as to be considered either in his naturalls or supernaturalls p. 132. 38. Whether Christ did intervene in his help to Adam so that he needed Christ in that estate p. 133. 39. Whether the tree of Life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam or no. p. 136. 40. Whether there was any revelation unto Adam of a Christ p. 136. 41. Whether the state of reparation be more excellent then that in innocency p. 137. 42. Whether we may be now by Christ said to be more righteous then Adam p. 138. 43. Whether that which God requireth of us be greater then that demanded of Adam in the state of innocency p. 138. 44. Whether Adams immortality in the estate of innocency be not different from that which shall be in heaven p. 139. 45. What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is and what kinde of lawes there are and why it 's called the Morall Law p. 147. 46. Whether this Law repeated by Moses be the same with the law of nature implanted in us p. 148. 47. Why God did then and not sooner give this Law unto his people p. 149. 48. Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God p. 150. 49. Why God gave the Morall Law p. 151. 50. Whether the ten Commandements as given by Moses doe belong to and bind us Christians or no. p. 165. 51. Whether Christ did adde any thing unto the Law p. 177. 52. Whether Christ did forbid all swearing p. 185. 53. Whether under the Gospel death or any capitall punishment may be inflicted for some offences p. 188. 189. 54. Whether the Law be an instrument of true sanctification p. 195. 55. Whether Christ have abrogated the Morall Law p. 208. 56. Whether the Law was a Covenant that God made with his people of Israel p. 230. 57. Whether the Law be a Covenant of grace p. 232. 58. Wherein the Law and Gospel doe oppose or differ from each other under which is handled the false differences between the Law and Gospel made by Anabaptists Papists and Antinomians p. 239. 59. Why God appointed such various and different administrations p. 256. 60. Whether the Gospel preach repentance or no. p. 260. 61. Whether the Law command faith p. 262. 62. How Christ is the end of the Law p. 266. VINDICIAE LEGIS OR The Vindication of the Law called MORALL LECTURE I. 1 Tim. 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully THis Epistle to Timothy may be called Paul's Directory for the Church of God and in the first place he enjoyneth Timothy to preserve the Truth against all false teachers as he himselfe doth in all his Epistles Though he derived much hatred upon his person thereby yet this was his comfort and glory as Hierome wrote to Austin when he had vindicated the Truth against Pelagians Quod signum majoris gloriae est omnes haeretici te detestantur It is a signe of thy greater glory that all heretiques hate thee His injunction to Timothy begins ver 3. Charge them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus translates it not to follow another doctrine as if it did belong to the followers but the words afterwards Teachers of the Law doe plainly refute that Now the word may be extended both to the matter as some to teach no other thing or to the manner as others not to teach in another way Not to teach nova new things no nor yet novè after a new manner The rule is Qui fingit nova verba nova gignit dogmata And it was Melancthons wish that men did not onely teach the same things but in iisdem verbis in iisdem syllabis in the same very words and syllables The second part of injunction is higher then the
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
in no sense else good Is not gold good because you cannot eat it and feed on it as you do on meat Take the precept of the Gospel yea take the Gospel acts as To beleeve this as it is a work doth not justifie Therefore that opinion which makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere to justifie may as well take in other acts of obedience But because faith as it is a work doth not justifie do you therefore reject beleeving A man may abuse all the ordinances of the Gospel as well as the Law The man that thinks the very outward work of Baptisme the very outward work of receiving a Sacrament will justifie him doth as much dishonour God as a Jew that thought circumcision or the sacrifices did justifie him You may quickly turn all the Gospel into the Law in that sense you may as well say What need I pray what need I repent it cannot justifie me as to deny the Law because it cannot Use 2. How vain a thing it is to advance grace and Christ oppositely to the Law nay they that destroy one destroy also the other Who prizeth the city of refuge so much as the malefactour that is pursued by guilt Who desireth the brasen Serpent but he that is stung If Christ be the end of the Law how is he contrary to it And if Christ and the Law could be under the Old Testament why not under the New It is true to use the Law otherwise then God hath appointed it 's no marvell if it hurt us if it poyson us as those that kept the Manna otherwise then they should it turned to wormes But if you use it so as Christ is the dearer and grace the more welcome to thee then thou dost well The law bids thee love God with all thine heart and soul doth not this bid thee goe to Christ Hast thou any strength to doe it And what thou dost being enabled by grace is that perfect Vae etiam laudabili vitae ei c. said Austin make therefore a right use of the Law and then thou wilt set up Christ and grace in thine heart as well as in thy mouth Now thou holdst free-grace as an opinion it may be but then all within thee will acknowledge it LECTURE II. 1 Tim. 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully IN these words you have heard 1. the position The Law is good 2. the supposition If a man use it lawfully Now this know in the generall that this is no more derogative to the Law that it is such a good which a man may use ill bonum quo aliquis malè uti potest then God or Christ or the Gospel or Free-grace are for all may turn this hony into gall yea an Antinomian may set up his preaching of grace as a work more eminent and so trust to that more then Christ I doe acknowledge that of Chrysostome to be very good speaking of the love of God in Christ and raised up in admiration of it Oh saith he I am like a man digging in a deep spring I stand here and the water riseth up upon me and I stand there and still the water riseth upon me So it is in the love of Christ and the Gospel the poore broken heart may finde unsearchable treasures there but yet this must not be used to the prejudice of the Law neither And take this as a Prologus galeatus to all I shall say That because the Law may be used unlawfully it is no more derogation then to the Gospel Wo be to the whole Land for the abuse of the Gospel is it not the matter of death to many I shall shew the generall wayes of abusing the Law 1. That in the Text when men turn it unto unfruitfull and unprofitable disputes and this the Apostle doth here mainly intend Cui bono must be the question made of any dispute about the Law and therefore if I should in this exercise I have undertaken handle any frivolous or unprofitable disputes this were to use the Law unlawfully and therefore let Ministers take heed that be not true of them which one dreamed about the School-men that he thought them all like a man eating an hard stone when pure manchet was by Besides he preacheth the Law unprofitably not only that darkeneth it with obscure questions but that doth not teach Christ by it and I see not but that Ministers may be humbled that they have pressed religious duties but not so as to set up Christ and hereby people have been content with duties and sacraments though no Christ in them But as all the vessels were to be of pure gold in the Temple so ought all our duties to be of pure and meere Christ for acceptation Tertullian saith of Cerinthus Legem proponit ad excludendum Evangelium he preacheth the Law to exclude the Gospel Therefore there may be such a legall preacher as is justly to be reproved the Apostle of the teachers in this Chapter saith they will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teachers of the law yet he rebuketh them for they brought in many fables about it as they feigned a dialogue between God and the Law before the world was made and that God made the world for the Lawes sake 2. When men look to carnall and worldly respects in the handling of it This is also to use the Law unlawfully And thus the Priests and the Jewes did as thereby to make a living and to have temporall blessings And it is no wonder that the Law may be used so seeing the doctrine of Christ is so abused There are as Nazianzen saith well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ-merchants and Christ-hucksters that hope as Judas did for carnall ends by Christ Therefore so we are to handle Law and Gospel not as thereby to make parties or to get applause but of a godly love and zeale to truth It was an honest complaint of a Popish writer We saith he handle the Scripture tantùm ut nos pascat vestiat that we might only live and be cloathed by it And how doe we all fall short of Paul as Act. 20. where he was preaching night and day with great affections and desired no mans gold or silver how well might Chrysostome call him Angelus terrestris Cor Pauli est cor Christi 3. When men would quite overthrow it or deny it Thus the Marcionites and Manichees of old and others of late though upon other grounds Now the ground of their errour are the many places of Scripture that seeme to deny the Law and I doe acknowledge it is hard to get the true sense of those places without diligence and therefore Austin said well as to that purpose if I mistake not They are not so much the simple as the negligent that are deceived herein and as Chrysostome saith A friend that is acquainted with his friend will get out the meaning of
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
saith he it cannot be conceived that it should rule but also it should reigne and therefore think it impossible that one act of the Law should be without the other The damnatory power of the Law is inseparable from it Can you put your conscience under the mandatory power and yet keep it from the damnatory Assertion of Grace page 33. Again the same Author page 31. If it be true that the Law cannot condemne it is no more a Law saith Luther I say not that you have dealt as uncourteously with the Law as did that King with Davids servants who cut off their garments by the midst but you have done worse for even Joab-like under friendly words you have destroyed the life and soule of the Law You can as well take your Appendices from the Law as you terme them and yet let it remain a true Law as you can take the brains and heart of a man and yet leave him a man still By this it appeareth that if the Law doth not curse a man neither can it command a man according to their opinion The same Author again pag. 5. He dare not trust a beleever to walk without his keeper the Law as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor in Newgate who would kill and rob if his Jaylor were not with him Thus they are onely kept within the compasse of the Law but are not keepers of it Yet at another time the same Author calls it a slander to say that they deny the Law Now who can reconcile these contradictions Nor is this shufling and uncertainty any new thing for the old and first Antinomian did many times promise amendment and yet afterwards fell to his errour again after that he condemned his errour and recanted his errour in a publike Auditory and printed his revocation yet when Luther was dead hee relapsed into that errour so hard a thing it is to get poison out when it 's once swallowed downe In the fourth place we come to lay downe those things that may cleare the meaning of the Apostle and first know that humane Authors who yet have acknowledged the help of precepts doe speak thus much of a righteous man onely to shew this that he doth that which is righteous for love of righteousnesse not for feare of punishment As Aquinas said of his love to God Amo quia amo amo ut amem Thus Seneca Ad Legem esse bonum exiguum est It 's a poore small thing to be good onely according to the law And so Aristotle lib. 3. Polit. cap. 9. sheweth how a righteous man would be good though there were no law as they say of a Magistrate he ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a living law Thus Socrates said of the Civill Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato Polit. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not fit to command or make lawes for those that are good These Sayings are not altogether true yet they have some kinde of truth in them Hence it was that Antisthenes said A wise man was not bound by any lawes And Demonax told a Lawyer that all their lawes would come to nothing for good men did not need them and wicked men would not be the better for them And as the Heathens have said thus so the Fathers Hierome What needs the Law say to a righteous man Thou shalt not kill to whom it 's not permitted to be angry Yet we see David though a righteous man needed this precept But especially Chrysostome even from these words doth wonderfully hyperbolize A righteous man needs not the Law no not teaching or admonishing yea he disdaines to be warned by it he doth not wait or stay to learn of it As therefore a Musician or Grammarian that hath these arts within him scorns the Grammar or to go to look to the rules so doth a righteous man Now these are but hyperbole's for what godly man is there that needs not the Word as a light that needs it not as a goad Indeed in heaven the godly shall not need the Law no more shall they the Gospel or the whole Word of God 2. There are three interpretations which come very neere one another and all doe well help to the clearing of the Apostle 1. Some learned men lay an emphasis in the word Made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not made to a godly man as a burden he hath a love and a delight in it Lex est posita sed non imposita He doth not say Justi non habent legem aut sunt sine lege sed non imminet eis tanquam flagellum it 's not like a whip to them The wicked wish there were no Law and cry out as he Utinam hoc esset non peccare The righteous man is rather in the Law then under it It 's true the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall doth signifie no more then to lye or be or is therefore in Athenaeus Ulpianus was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of his frequent questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where such or such a word might be found but yet sometimes it signifieth to be laid to a thing as to destroy it so Matth. 3. 10. The axe is laid to the root of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the originall and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posita for opposita as we say positus obex Now this is to be understood so farre forth as he is righteous otherwise the things of God are many times a burden to a godly man Let us not oppose then the works of the Law and the works of the Spirit Grace and Gospel for the same actions are the works of the Law ratione objecti in respect of the object and the works of the Spirit ratione efficientis in respect of the efficient Indeed the Scripture opposeth Grace and Works and Faith and Works but in a clean other sense then the Antinomian in time is to be shewed The second interpretation is of the damnatory and cursing part of the Law The Law is not made to the beleever so as he should abide under the cursing and condemning power of it and in this sense we are frequently denied to be under the Law It 's true the godly are under the desert of the curse of the Law but not the actuall curse and condemnation Nor doth it therefore follow that there is no Law because it doth not curse for it 's a good rule in Divinity à remotione actûs secundi in subjecto impediti non valet argumentum ad remotionem actûs primi from the removall of an act or operation the argument doth not hold to the removing of the thing it self as it did not follow The fire did not burn the three Worthies therefore there was no fire God did hinder the act And if that could be in naturall agents which work naturally how much
rather in morall causes such as the Law is of condemnation which works according to the appointment of God So then the Law is not to curse or condemne the righteous man The last interpretation is that the Law was not made because of righteous men but unrighteous Had Adam continued in innocency there had not been such a solemne declaration of Moses his Law for it had been graven in their hearts Therefore though God gave a positive law to Adam for the tryall of his obedience and to shew his homage yet he did not give the Morall Law to him by outward prescript though it was given to him in another sense and so the phrase shall be like that Proverb E malis moribus bonae leges nascuntur Good lawes arise from evil manners And certainly lawes in the restraining and changing power of them upon the lives of men are not for such who are already holy but those that need to be made holy and so it may be like that of our Saviour in a sense which some explaine it in I come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance By repentance they meane conversion and by the righteous not Pharisees but such as are already converted Thus Tacitus Annal. 15. Usu probatum est leges egregias ex aliorum delictis gigni c. Nam culpa quam poena tempore prior emendari quam peccare posterius est excellent Lawes are made because of other mens delinquencies The fault goeth before the punishment and sinne before the amendment Now that these interpretations much agreeing in one may the better be assented to consider some parallel places of Scripture Galat. 5. 23. speaking of the fruits of the spirit Against such there is no law The Law was not made to these to condemne them or accuse them so that what is said of the actions and graces of the godly may be applyed to the godly themselves You may take another parallel Rom. 13. 3. Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil Wouldst thou not be afraid of them doe no evil And thus the Apostle to shew how the grace of love was wrought in the Thessalonians hearts I need not saith he write to you to love for you have been taught of God to doe this His very saying I need not write was a writing so that these expressions doe hold forth no more then that the godly so farre as they are regenerate doe delight in the Law of God and it is not a terrour to them And if because the godly have an ingenuous free spirit to doe what is good he need not the Law directing or regulating it would follow as well he needed not the whole Scripture he needed not the Gospel that calls upon him to beleeve because faith is implanted in his heart This rock cannot be avoided And therefore upon this ground because the godly are made holy in themselves the Swencfeldians did deny the whole Scripture to be needfull to a man that hath the Spirit And that which the Antinomian doth limit to the Law It is a killing letter they apply to the whole Scripture and I cannot see how they can escape this argument Hence Chrysostome that spake so hyperbolically about the Law speaks as high about the Scriptures themselves We ought to have the Word of God engraven in our hearts so that there should be no need of Scripture And Austin speakes of some that had attained to such holinesse that they lived without a Bible Now who doth not see what a damnable and dangerous position this would be That the Law must needs have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man will appeare in these two particulars 1. We cannot discerne the true worship of God from superstition and idolatry but by the first and second Commandement It is true many places in Scripture speak against false worship but to know when it is a false worship the second Commandement is a speciall director How do the orthodox Writers prove Images unlawfull how do they prove that the setting up any part or meanes of worship which the Lord hath not commanded is unlawfull but by the second Commandement And certainly the want of exact knowledge in the latitude of this Commandement brought in all idolatry and superstition And we shall shew you God willing in time that the Decalogue is not onely Moses his ten Commandements but it 's Christs ten Commandements and the Apostles ten Commandements as well as his 2. Another instance at this time is in comparing the depth of the Law and the depth of our sinne together There is a great deale more spirituall excellency and holinesse commanded in the Law of God the Decalogue then we can reach unto Therefore we are to study into it more and more Open mine eyes that I may understand the wonderfull things of thy Law thus David prayeth though godly and his eyes were in a great measure opened by the Spirit of God And as there is a depth in the Law so a depth in our originall and native sin There is a great deale more filth in us then we can or doe discover Psal 19. Who can understand his errours Cleanse me from secret sins Therefore there being such a world of filth in thy carnall heart what need is there of the spirituall and holy Law to make thee see thy self thus polluted and abominable Certainly a godly man groweth partly by discovering that pride that deadnesse that filth in his soule he never thought of or was acquainted with The practicall use that is to be made of this Scripture explained is to pray and labour for such a free heavenly heart that the Law of God and all the precepts of it may not be a terrour to you but sweetnesse and delight Oh how I love thy Law cryeth David he could not expresse it And again My soul breaketh in the longing after thy judgements In another place he and Job do account of them above their necessary food you do not hale and drag an hungry or thirsty man to his bread and water I doe not speak this but that it 's lawfull to eye the reward as Moses and Christ did yea and to fear God for who can think that the Scripture using these motives would stirre up in us sinfull and unlawfull affections but yet such ought to be the filiall and son-like affections to God and his will that we ought to love and delight in his Commandements because they are his as the poore son loveth his father though he hath no lordship or rich inheritance to give him There is this difference between a free and violent motion a free motion is that which is done for its own selfe sake a violent is that which cometh from an outward principle the patient helping it not forward at all Let not to pray to beleeve to love God be violent motions in you Where faith worketh by love this maketh all duties relish thsi overcometh
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 Frontispice 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 so be it could be proved as Zwinglius held that Christ did communicate himself to some Heathens then it were another matter I will not bring all the places they stand upon that which is mainely urged is Act. 10. of Cornelius his prayers were accepted and saith Peter Now I perceive c. But this proceedeth from a meere mistake for Cornelius had the implicite knowledge and faith of Christ and had received the doctrine of the Messias though he was ignorant of Christ that individuall Person And as for that worshipping of him in every Nation that is not to be understood of men abiding so but whereas before it was limited to the Jewes now God would receive all that should come to him of what Nation soever There is a two-fold Unbelief one Negative and for this no Heathen is damned He is not condemned because he doth not beleeve in Christ but for his originall and actuall sinnes Secondly there is Positive Unbelief which they only are guilty of who live under the meanes of the Gospel The fourth Question is Whether that be true of the Papists which hold that the sacrifices the Patriarchs offered to God were by the meere light of Nature For so saith Lessius Lex Naturae obstringit suadet c. the Law of Nature both bindeth and dictateth all to offer sacrifices to God therefore they make it necessary that there should be a sacrifice now under the New Testament offered unto God And upon this ground Lessius saith it is lawfull for the Indians to offer up sacrifices unto God according to their way and custome And making this doubt to himself How shall they doe for a Priest He answereth that as a common-wealth may appoint a Governour to rule over them and to whom they will submit in all things so may it appoint a Priest to officiate in all things for them This is strange for a Papist to say who doteth so much upon succession as if where that is not there could be no ministery Now in this case he gives the people a power to make a Priest But howsoever it may be by the light of Nature that God is religiously to be worshipped yet it must be onely instituted worship that can please him And thus much Socrates an Heathen said That God must onely be worshipped in that way wherein he hath declared his will to be so Seeing therefore Abel and so others offered in faith and faith doth alwayes relate to some testimony and word it is necessary to hold that God did reveale to Adam his will to be worshipped by those externall sacrifices and the oblations of them It is true almost all the Heathens offered sacrifices unto their gods but this they did as having it at first by hear-say from the people of God and also Satan is alwayes imitating of God in his institutions And howsoever the destructive mutation or change of the thing which is alwayes necessary to a sacrifice doth argue and is a signe of subjection and deepest humiliation yet how should Nature prescribe that the demonstration of our submission must be in such a kind or way The fifth Question is Whether originall sin can be found out by the meere light of Nature Or Whether it is onely a meere matter of faith that we are thus polluted It is true the learned Mornay labours to prove by naturall reason our pollution and sheweth how many of the ancient Platonists doe agree in this That the soule is now vassalled to sense and affections and that her wings are cut whereby she should soare up into heaven And so Tully he saith Cum primùm nascimur in omni continuò pravitate versamur much like that of the Scripture The Imagination of the thoughts of a mans heart is onely evil and that continually But Aristotle of whom one said wickedly and falsly that he was the same in Naturals which Christ was in Supernaturals he makes a man to be obrasa tabula without sin or vertue though indeed it doth incline ad meliora Tully affirmeth also that there are semina innata virtutum in us onely we overcome them presently Thus also Seneca Erras si tecum nasci vitia putas supervenerunt ingesta sunt as I said before Here we see the wisest of the Philosophers speaking against it Hence Julian the Pelagian heaped many sentences out of the chiefest Philosophers against any such corruption of nature But Austine answered It was not much matter what they said seeing they were ignorant of these things The truth is by nature we may discover a great languishment and infirmity come upon us but the true nature of this and how it came about can only be known by Scripture-light Therefore the Apostle Rom. 7. saith he had not known lust to be sin had not the Law said Thou shalt not last The sixth Question is What is the meaning of that grand rule of Nature which our Saviour also repeateth That which you would not have other men doe to you doe not you to them Matth. 7. 12. It is reported of Alexander Severus that he did much delight in this saying which he had from the Jewes or Christians and our Saviour addeth this that This is the Law and the Prophets so that it is a great thing even for Christians to keep to this principle Men may pray and exercise religious duties and yet not doe this therefore the Apostle addeth this to prayer so that we may live as we pray according to that good rule of the Platonist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How would this subdue all those proud envious censorious and inimicitious carriages to one another But now when we speake of doing that to another which we would have done to our selves it is to be understood of a right and well-regulated will not corrupted or depraved The seventh Question is Whether the practice of the Apostles making all their goods common was according to the precept of Nature and so binding all to such a practice For there have been and still are those that hold this But now that communion of all things is not jure Naturae appeareth in that theft is a sin against the Morall Law which could not be if division of goods were not according to the law of Nature Indeed by Nature all things were common but then it was Natures dictate to divide them as
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
soul hath said By one man sin so let it say By one man life LECTURE XIII GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die I Have already handled this Text as it containeth a law given to Adam by God as a foveraigne Lord over him now I shall re-assume this Text and consider it as part of a Covenant which God did enter into with Adam and his posterity for these two things a Law and a Covenant arise from different grounds The Law is from God as supreme and having absolute power and so requiring subjection the other ariseth from the love and goodnesse of God whereby he doth sweeten and mollifie that power of his and ingageth himself to reward that obedience which were otherwise due though God should never recompence it The words therefore being heretofore explained and the Text eas'd of all difficulties I observe this Doctrine That God did not only as a Law-giver injoys obedience unto Adam but as a loving God did also enter into covenant with him And for the opening of this you must take these Considerations 1. That this covenant with Adam in the state of innocency is more obscurely laid down then the covenant of grace after the fall for afterwards you have the expresse name of the Covenant and the solemne entring into it by both parties but this Covenant made with Adam must only be gathered by deduction and consequence This Text cometh the neerest to a Covenant because here is the threatning expressed and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience We are not therefore to be so rigid as to call for expresse places which doe name this Covenant for that which is necessarily and immediately drawn from Scripture is as truly Scripture as that which is expresly contained in it Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandements by way of Covenant 1. From the evil threatned and the good promised For while there is a meere command so long it is a law onely but when it is further confirmed by promises and threatnings then it becomes a Covenant And if that position be true of some which maketh the tree of life a sacrament then here was not onely nudum pactum a meer covenant but a seale also to confirme it And certainly being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature it was of his meere goodnesse to become ingaged in a promise for this I know it 's a Question by some Whether Adam upon his obedience should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in that naturall life which was marvellous happy But either way would have been by meer promise of God not by any naturall necessity Life must be extended as farre as death now the death threatned was not onely a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom. 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deal very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meer Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his etymology of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as a tally to maintain their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implyeth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle
from the beginning if upon thy sick weak and mortall body It was not thus from the beginning Now here is no way to keep up the heart but by looking to Christ Though thou hast lost the image of God yet he is the expresse image of his Father Though thou hast not perfect righteousnesse he hath Whatsoever thy losse and evil be by the first Adam thy gain and good may be by the last Adam Admire herein the mysteries of Gods grace and love What may we not expect for temporalls if needfull when he is thus gracious in spiritualls Are riches subsistence equall to Christ Use 2. Of Exhortation not to rest in any estate but that of restauration again The word as you heard Ephes 1. 10. to gather doth imply that all mankind is like an house fallen down lying in its rubbish and ruines Let us not therefore stay in this condition It 's a condition of sinne of wrath Oh much better never to have been born then to be thus How happy are all the irrationall creatures in their estate above us if not repaired by Christ And know that to be restored again to this image of God is a great and rare blessing few partake of it Holinesse must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee as ever sinne and corruption hath soaked into thee Thou didst drink iniquity like water doest thou now as the Hart pant after the water-brooks The resurrection of the soul must be in this life It was sinfull proud but it 's raised an holy humble soule LECTVRE XV. EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. HAving handled the Law given to Adam in innocency both absolutely as it is a Law and relatively as a Covenant we now proceed to speak of that Law given by God through the ministery of Moses to the people of Israel which is the great subject in controversie between the Antinomians and us There were indeed Precepts and Laws given before Moses Hence the Learned speak much of Noah's Precepts The Talmudists say as Cuneus relates that these seven Precepts of Noah did contain such an exact rule of righteousness that whosoever did not know them the Israelites were commanded to kill But because these are impertinent to my scope I pass them by And in the handling of this Law of Moses I will use my former method considering the Law absolutely in it self and then relatively as a Covenant for as God you have heard hath suffered other errours about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and the grace of God therefore to break forth that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever by those opinions which would overthrow it The Text upon which most of the matter I have to say shall be grounded are the words now read unto you that are an introduction to the Law containing briefly 1. The nature of the matter delivered which is called Words so Deut 4. ten words hence it s called the Decalogue Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word meerly as we say one word for so the ten Commandments are more then ten words but it signifieth a concise and brief sentence by way of command Hence it s translated sometimes by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. 19. and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 118. 57. so in the New Testament that which is called by Mark 7. 13. the word of God is by Matthew named the commandment of God So Paul also Gal. 5. 14. The whole Law is fulfilled in one word that is one brief sentence by way of command 2. You have the note of universality All these words to shew that nothing may be added to them or diminished onely here is a difficulty for Deut. 5. where these things are repeated again by Moses there some things are transposed and some words are changed But this may be answered easily that the Scripture doth frequently use a liberty in changing of words when it repeateth the same thing onely it doth not alter the sense And happily this may be to confute that superstitious opinion of the Jews who are ready to dream of miraculous mysteries in every letter 3. There is the efficient cause of this in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used in the plurall as some of the Learned observe defectively and is to be supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the excellency of God as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for excellentissima fera By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because saith a learned man they interpreting this for the Grecians and the wise men amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they would use a word to shew that he who gave the Law was Lord even over all those Now God is here described to be the author of these Laws that so the greater authority may be procured to them Hence all Law-givers have endeavoured to perswade the people that they had their Laws from God 4. You have the manner of delivering them God spake them saying which is not to be understood as if God were a body and had organs of speaking but only that he formed a voice in the air Now here ariseth a great difficulty because of Acts 7. where he that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angel This maketh the Papists and Grotius go upon a dangerous foundation That God did not immediatly deliver the Law but an Angel who is therefore called God and assumes unto himself the name Jehovah because he did represent the person of God But this is confuted by the learned I shall not preface any further but raise this Doctrine That God delivered a Law to the people of Israel by the hand or ministry of Moses I shall God willing handle this point doctrinally in all the Theological considerations about the Law and First you must still remember that the word Law may be used in divers senses and before this or that be asserted of it you must clear in what sense you speak of the Law Not to trouble you again with the several acceptions of the word which you must have alwaies in your eye take notice at the present of what a large or restrained signification the word Law is capable of for we may either take the word Law for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the Commandments Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Or else more strictly for that part which we call the Morall Law yet with the preface and promises added to it and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace which is to be proved in due time Or else most strictly
for that which is meer mandative and preceptive without any promise at all And in this sense most of those assertions which the Learned have concerning the difference between the Law and the Gospel are to be understood for if you take as for the most part they do all the precepts and threatnings scattered up down in the Scripture to be properly the Law and then all the gracious promises wheresoever they are to be the Gospel then it s no marvell if the Law have many hard expressions cast upon it Now this shall be handled on purpose in a distinct question by it self because I see many excellent men peremptory for this difference but I much question whether it will hold or no. 2. What Law this delivered in Mount Sinai is and what kindes of laws there are and why it s called the Morall Law It is plain by Exod. 20. cap. 21. All the laws that the Jews had were then given to Moses to deliver unto the people only that which we call the Morall Law had the great preheminency being twice written by God himself in tables of stone Now the whole body of these laws is according to the matter and object divided into Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall We will not meddle with the Queries that may be made about this division We may without any danger receive it and that Law which we are to treat upon is the Moral Law And here it must be acknowledged that the different use of the word Morall hath bred many perplexities yea in whatsoever controversie it hath been used it hath caused mistakes The word Morall or Morally is used in the controversie of the Sabbath in the question about converting grace in the doctrine of the Sacraments about their efficacy and causality and so in this question about a Law what makes it morall Now in this present doubt howsoever the word Moral beareth no such force in the notation of it it being as much as that which directeth and obligeth about manners and so applicable even to the Judiciall and Ceremoniall and these are in a sense commanded in the Moral Law though they be not perpetuall as to denote that which is perpetual and alwaies obliging yet thus it is meant here when we speak of a thing moral as opposite to that which is binding but for a time 3. Whether this law repeated by Moses be the same with the Law of nature implanted in us And this is taken for granted by many but certainly there may be given many great differences between them for First if he speak of the Law of Nature implanted in Adam at first or as now degenerated and almost defaced in us whatsoever is by that law injoyned doth reach unto all and binde all though there be no promulgation of such things unto them But now the Moral Law in some things that are positive and determined by the will of God meerly did not binde all the nations in the world for howsoever the command for the Sabbath day was perpetuall yet it did not binde the Gentiles who never heard of that determined time by God so that there are more things expressed in that then in the law of Nature Besides in the second place The Moral Law given by God doth induce a new obligation from the command of it so that though the matter of it and of the law of nature agree in many things yet he that breaketh these Commandments now doth sin more hainously then he that is an Heathen or Pagan because by Gods command there cometh a further obligation and tye upon him In the third place in the Morall Law is required justifying faith and repentance as is to be proved when I come to speak of it as a Covenant which could not be in the Law given to Adam so the second Commandment requireth the particular worship of God insomuch that all the Ceremoniall Law yea our Sacraments are commanded in the second Commandment it being of a very spirituall and comprehensive nature so that although the Morall Law hath many things which are also contained in the law of Nature yet the Morall Law hath more particulars then can be in that Hence you see the Apostle saith he had not known lust to be sin had not the Law said so although he had the law of Nature to convince him of sin 4. Why it was now added The time when it was added appeareth by the 18. Chapter to wit when the people of Israel were in the Wilderness and had now come to their twelfth station in Mount Sinai That reason which Philo giveth because the Lawes of God are to be learnt in a Wilderness seeing there we cannot be hindred by the multitude is no waies solid Two reasons there may be why now and not sooner or later God gave this Law First because the people of Israel coming out of Aegypt had defiled themselves with their waies and we see while they were in their journie in the Wilderness what horrible gross impieties they plunged themselves into therefore God to restraine their impietie and idolatry giveth them this Law to repress all that insolency so Rom 5. and Gal. 3. The Law came because of transgressions Hence Theophilact observeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was added signifieth that the Law was not primarily and for it 's own sake given as the promises were but to restrain transgressions then over flowing But Secondly I conceive the great and proper reason why God at this time rather then another gave the Law was because now they began to be a great people they were to enter into Canaan and to set up a Common wealth and therefore God makes them lawes for he was their King in a speciall manner insomuch that all their Lawes even politicall were divine and therefore the Magistrates could not dispence in their lawes as now Governours may in their lawes of the Common-wealth which are meerly so because then they should dispensare de jure alieno which is not lawfull This therefore was the proper reason why God at this time set up the whole body of their Lawes because they were now to grow into a Common-wealth Hence Josephus calls the Common-wealth of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a place where God was the Governour 5. Whether this Law was not before in the Church of God And certainly he that should think this Law was not in the Church of God before Moses his administration of it should gratly erre Murder was a sin before as appeareth by Gods words to Cain yea the very anger it selfe that goeth before murder So all the outward worship of God as when it s said Then began man to call upon the name of the Lord so that the Church of God never was nor ever shall be without this Law And when we say the Law was before Moses I do not meane only that it was written in the hearts of men but
it was publikely preached in the ministry that the Church did then enjoy as appeareth by Noah's preaching to the old world and Gods striving with men then by his word So that we may say the Decalogue is Adams and Abrahams and Noahs and Christs and the Apostles as well as of Moses Indeed there was speciall reason as you heard why at that time there should be a speciall promulgation of it and a solemn repetition but yet the Law did perpetually sound in the Church ever since it was a Church And this consideration will make much to set forth the excellency of it it being a perpetuall meanes and instrument which God hath used in his Church for information of duty conviction of sin and exhortation to all holiness So that men who speak against the use of the Law and the preaching of it do oppose the universall way of the Church of God in the Old and New Testament 6. The end why God gave this law to them I spake before of the end why he gave it then now I speak of the finall cause in generall and here I shall not speak of it in reference to Christ or Justification that is to be thought on when we handle it as a Covenant but only as it was an absolute rule or law And here it will be a great errour to think the promulgation of it had but one end for there were many ends 1. Because much corruption had now seised upon mankind and the people of Israel had lived long without the publick worship and service of God it was necessary to have this law enioyned them that they might see far more purity and holiness required of them then otherwise they would be perswaded of 2. By this meanes they would come to know sin as the Apostle speakes and so be deeply humbled in themselvs the law of God being a cleare light to manifest those inward heart-sins and soul-lusts that crawl in us as so many toads and serpents which we could never discover before 3. Hereby was shadowed forth the excellent and holy nature of God as also what purity was accepted by him and how we should be holy as he himselfe is holy for the law is holy as God is holy It s nothing but an expression draught of that great purity which is in his nature insomuch that it s accounted the great wisedome of that people of Israel to have such lawes and the very Nations themselves should admire at it 7. The great goodness and favour of God in delivering this law to them And this comes fitly in the next place to consider of that it was an infinite mercy of God to that people to give them this law Hence Deut. 9. and in other places how often doth God press them with this love of his in giving them those commandments And that it was not for their sakes or because of any merit in them but because he loved them So David Psal 147. he hath not done so to other Nations Hosea also aggravates this mercy Hos 8. 12. I have written unto him the great things of my Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplitudines legis meae where the Prophet makes the Law a precious gift deposited in the Jews hands And to this may be referred all the benifits that the Psalmist and Prophets do make to come by the law of God insomuch that it is a very great ingratitude and unthankfulness unto God when people cry down the Law and the preaching of it That which God speaks of as a great mercy to a people they do reject Nor because that God hath vouchsafed greater expressions of his love to us in these latter dayes therefore may those former mercies be forgotten by us seeing the Law doth belong unto us for those ends it was given to the Jews now under the Gospel as is to be proved as much as unto them And therefore you cannot reade one commandment in the spirituall explication of it for the law is spirituall but you have cause to bless God saying Lord what are we that thy will should be so clearly and purely manifested to us above what it is to Heathens yea and Papists with many others Therefore beloved it is not enough for you to be no Antinomian but you are to bless God and praise him for it that it s read and opened in our congregations 8. The perfection of this law containing a perfect rule of all things belonging to God or man And here againe I shall not speak of it as a covenant but meerly as its a rule of obedience And thus though it be short yet it s so perfect that it containeth all that is to be done or omitted by us Insomuch that all the Prophets and Apostles do but adde the explication of the Law if it be not taken in too strict a sense Hence is that commandment of not adding to it or detracting from it And in what sense the Apostle speakes against it calling it the killing letter the ministration of death working wrath is to be shewed hereafter When our Saviour Mat. 5. gave those severall precepts he did not adde them as new unto the Morall Law but did vindicate that from the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees as is to be proved Indeed it may seem hard to say that Christ and justifying faith the doctrine of the Trinity is included in this promulgation of the Law but it is to be proved that all these were then comprehended in the administration of it though more obscurely Nor wil this be to confound the Law and the Gospel as some may think This law therefore and rule of life which God gave the people of Israel and to all us Christians in them is so perfect and full that there is nothing necessary to the duty and worship of God which is not here commanded nor no sin to be avoided which is not here forbidden And this made Peter Martyr as you heard compare it to the ten Predicaments Use Of Admonition to take heed how we vilifie or contemne this Law of God either doctrinally or practically Doctrinally so the Marcionites and the Manichees and Basilides whereof some have said it was carnall yea that it was from Devil and that it was given to the Jews for their destruction because it 's said to work wrath and to be the instrument of death And those opinions and expressions of the Antinomians about it are very dangerous What shall we revile that which is Gods great mercy to a people Because the Jews and Papists do abuse the Law and the works of it to justification shall it not therefore have its proper place and dignity How sacred are the laws of a Common-wealth which yet are made by men But this is by the wise God Take heed therefore of such phrases An Old-Testament-spirit and His Sermon is nothing but an explication of the Law For it ought much to rejoyce thee to hear that
pure and excellent image of Gods holiness opened How mayest thou delight to have that purity enjoyned which will make thee loath thy self prize Christ and Grace more and be a quick goad to all holiness And if you say Here is nothing of Christ all this while I answer That is false as is to be proved if the Law be not taken very strictly And besides the Law and the Gospel are not to be severed but they mutually put a fresh relish and taste upon each other And shall no mercy be esteemed but what is the Gospel Thou art thankfull for temporall mercies and yet they are not the Gospel but this is a spiritual mercy LECTVRE XVI EXOD. 20. 1. God spake these words saying c. I Have already begun the discourse about the Morall Law and shall at this time consider those historical passages which we meet with in the promulgation of it that so the excellency of it may hereby be more known for whosoever shall diligently observe all the circumstances of the history of the Law he shall finde that God did put glory upon it and howsoever the Apostle Hebr. 12. and 2 Corinth 3. doth prefer the Gospel above this ministration of Moses yet absolutely in it self it was greatly honoured by God In the general therefore you may take notice that therefore did God so solemnly and with great majesty give the Law that so the greater authority may thereby be procured to it Hence it is related of many Heathens that they have feigned some familiarity with their gods when they made their laws that so the people might with greater awe and reverence receive them Thus Numa feigned his discourse with the goddess Aegaeria for his laws and it 's related of Pythagoras that he had a tamed Eagle which he would cause to come flying to him to make people think his sentences were delivered from heaven to him If laws of men might well be called by Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much rather this Law of God It 's but a conceit of Prospers that Judaei were so called because they received Jus Dei the Law of God It s further also to be observed in the general that God hath alwaies had apparitions sutable to the matter in hand Thus he appeared in a burning bush to Moses like an armed man to Josua and with all signs of majesty and a great God being to deliver laws to the people that they might see how potent he was to be avenged for every breach Again in the next place take also this generall Observation That although the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes were given at the same time with the Morall Law yet there is a difference between them And this is to be taken notice of lest any should think what will this discourse make for the honour of the Morall Law more then the other lawes It 's true these three kinds of lawes agree in the common efficient cause which was God and in the minister or mediator which was Moses in the subject which was the people of Israel and all and every one of them as also in the common effects of binding and obliging them to obedience and to punish the bold offenders against them But herein the Morall Law is preheminent 1. In that it is a foundation of the other lawes and they are reduceable to it 2. This was to abide alwaies not the other 3. This was immediately writen by God and commanded to be kept in the Ark which the other were not Lastly observe these two things in the generall about the time of the delivery of the Law First God did not give them his Law till he had deeply humbled them and it may be now Christ will not settle his ordinance with us till he hath brought us low And secondly Before they come unto the Land of promise God setleth his worship and lawes When he hath done this then he bids them Deut. 2. 1. Goe towards Canaan This sheweth A people cannot have Canaan till the things of God be setled But we come to the remarkable parts of the history of the promulgation of this Law and first you may consider the great and dilligent preparation of the people to heare it Exod. 19. for first They were to sanctifie themselves and to wash their clothes This indeed was peculiar unto those times yet God did hereby require the cleansing sanctification of their hearts The superstitious imitating of this was among the Gentiles who used to wash that they may goe to sacrifice Plaut in Aulul Act 3. scen 6. yea this superstition was brought into the Church Chrysost Hom. 52. in Mat. We see saith he this custome confirmed in many Churches that many study diligently how they may come to Church with their hands washt and white garments And Tert. cap. 11. de Orat. Hae sunt verae mundiciae non quas plerique superstitiosè curant ad omnem orationem etiam cum lavacro totius corporis aquam sumentes This is true cleannes and not that which many superstiously regard washing their whole body in water when they goe to pray but this by the way God did hereby fignifie what purity and holiness of heart should be in them to receive his Law The second thing requisite was to set bounds so that none might touch the Mount It 's a violent perverting of Scripture which the popish Canons have applying this a llegorically to a lay-man if he reade or medle with the Scripture whereas not only a beast but not the Priests themselves should touch this mountain and hereby God would have men keep within their bounds and not to be too curious The Doctrine of the Trinity of Predestination are such a mountain that a man must keep at the bottome of it and not climb up The third thing was not to come at their wives Some do refer this to those women that were legally polluted but it may be well understood of their conjugall abstinency not as a thing sinfull but that hereby God would have them put off not only affections to all sinnes but all lawfull things so that this preparation for three dayes doth make much for the excellency of the Law and sheweth how spirituall we should be in the receiving of it 2. The Declaration of Majesty and greatness upon the delivery of it For although it must be granted that this was an accommodated way to the Law that did convince of sinne and terrisie hence the Apostle Heb. 12. 18 19 c. preferreth the ministration of the Gospel above it yet this also was a true cause why thundrings and terrours did accompany the promulgation of it that so the people might be raised up to fear and reverence of the Law-giver Hence Rev. 4. 5. God is described in his Majestie sitting upon his throne and lightnings with thunders proceeding from him Now it 's very probable that these were raised by God in an extraordinary manner
to overcome the heart of the stoutest And in this nature we are still to suppose the Law preached to us for howsoever all that terrour be past yet the effect of it ought to abide upon every man so far forth as corruption abideth in him for what man is there whose pride lukewarmness or any sinfull corruption needs not this awakening It 's said Exod. 19. 18. God descended upon the mount Sinai in a smoak of fire and a cloud all was to shew the incomprehensible Majesty of God as also his terrour to wicked men and in this respect the dispensation of the Gospel was of greater sweetness Hence Gal 4. 24. the Apostle makes this mount Sinai to be Agar generating to bondage This I say must be granted if you speake comparatively with Gospel-dispensations but yet the Psalmist speakes of this absolutely in it selfe as a great mercy Psal 50. 2. Out of Sion the perfection of beauty God hath shined and the fire about him did signifie his glorious splendour as also his power to overthrow his enemies and consume them so Psal 96. All the earth is bid to rejoyce at the Lords reigning which is described by his solemne giving of the Law which the Church is to rejoyce at yea ver 7. it is applyed to Christ Heb. 7. though the Apostle followes the Septuagint so that if you take these things absolutely they are lookt upon as mercies yea and applyed to Christ And it is made a wonderfull mercy to them that God did thus familiarly reveale himselfe to them Deut. 4. 7. and Deut. 5. 4. yea learned men think that Christ the Son of God did in the shape of a man deliver this Law to Moses and speake familiarly with him but especially see Deut. 33. 3. where the word loving signifies imbracing by way of protection in the bosome The gifts of the holy Ghost were given with fiery tongues and a mighty rushing wind so that the Gospel is fire as well as the Law 3. Gods immediate writing of these with his own fingers in tables of stone Exod. 31. 18. Which honour was not vouchsafed to the other Lawes Now by the Finger of God howsoever some of the Fathers have understood the holy Ghost and because the Finger is of the same essence with the body infer the holy Ghost to be of the same nature with God yet this conceit is not solid although Luke 11. 20. that wich is called the finger of God Matth. 12. 28. called the Spirit of God We must therefore understand it of the power and operation of God who caused those words to be written there The matter upon which this is writen is said to be tables of stone The Rabbins conceit saying that because it is said of stone in the singular number that therefore it was but one table which sometimes did appeare as one sometimes as two is not worth the confuting That which is here to be considered and makes much to the dignity of the Law is that it was written by God upon tables of stone to shew the perpetuity and stability of it And howsoever this of it selfe be not a demonstrative argument to establish the perpetuity of the Law against any Antinomian yet it may prevaile with any reasonable man Hence Law-givers that have laboured the stability of their lawes caused them to be ingraven in Brass or Marble so Pliny lib 3◠ca. 9. speakes of brassie tables ad perpetuitatem monumentorum Plato as Rhodoginus reports lib. 25. cap. 2. thought that Lawes should be written in tabulis cupressinis quod futuras putabat aeterniores quà m aereas It is true there is also a mysticall signification which is not to be rejected because the Apostle alludes to it that hereby was signified the hardness of the Jews heart which could not easily receive that impression of the Law Hence the excellency of the Gospel doth appear in that it is by grace wrought in the hearts of men But yet this is not so to be understood as if God did not in the old Testament even then write his Law in the hearts of men Therefore that Promise of the Gospel mentioned by Jeremiah is not to be understood exclusively as if God did not at all write his Law in their hearts but comparatively 4. The sad breaking of this Law by the people of Israel As the Law given by God to Adam was immediately broken so this Law given in such a powerfull manner to keep the Israelites in an holy fear and reverence yet how soon was it forgotten by them For upon Moses his delay they presently fell into idolatry Some think they thought Moses was dead and therefore they desired some visible god among them as the Egyptians had and because they worshiped Apis an Oxe hence they made a Calfe wherein their wickedness was exceeding great though against the truth some Rabbins excuse them from idolatry because they did immediately upon the promulgation of the Law when they had so solemnly promised obedience fall into this sin and not only so but worshipped it and gave the glory of all the benefits they injoyed unto this not as if they were so simple as to think this a god but to worship the true God by this And this confuteth all those distinctions that Idolaters use especially Papists about their false worship We are not to follow our own hearts but the Word As the childe in the womb liveth by fetching nourishment by the navell only from the mother so doth the Church by fetching instruction and direction from Christ 5. The time of Moses his abode on the Mount This also is observable in the story for hereby God did not only procure great ground of Authority for Moses among the people but also unto the Law And therefore as some compare the time of giving the Law with the effusion of the gifts of the holy Ghost in the Gospel making the former to be the fiftieth day of their egresse out of Egypt called Pentecost so at the same time the holy Ghost was given to the Church Thus also they compare Moses forty dayes upon the Mount with our Saviours forty days in the wilderness when he was tempted It was certainly a miraculous preservation of Moses that he should be there so long and neither eat nor drink But this example of Moses with that of our Saviours is very vainly and unwarrantably brought for fasting in Lent 6. Moses his zeal against this their idolatry and breaking of the Tables When Moses came down he saw how the people had transgressed the Law of God which so moved him that in his zeal he brake the Tables that were first made This certainly was by the immediate ordering of God to signifie that this could not be a way of justification for them and indeed to hold that the Law can justifie is so great an errour that we are all Antinomians in this sense One hath said that the Law was like the tree of knowledge of
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
proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jews So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and do say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians do professe they do not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also do not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speak not of the whole latitude of the Ministery of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there could be no obligation from the matter had it not been revoked and abolished then the Morall Law given by Moses must still oblige though it did not binde in respect of the matter unlesse we can shew where it is repealed For the further clearing of this you may consider that this was the great Question which did so much trouble the Church in her infancy Whether Gentiles converted were bound to keep up the Ceremoniall Law Whether they were bound to circumcise and to use all those legall purifications Now how are these Questions decided but thus That they were but the shadows and Christ the fulnesse was come and therefore they were to cease And thus for the Judiciall Laws because they were given to them as a politick body that polity ceasing which was the principall the accessory falls with it so that the Ceremoniall Law in the judgement of all had still bound Christians were there not speciall revocations of these commands and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law for the matter of that is perpetuall and there are no places of Scripture that do abrogate it And if you say that the Apostle in some places speaking of the Law seemeth to take in Morall as well as Ceremoniall I answer it thus The question which was first started up and troubled the Church was meerly about Ceremonies as appeareth Act 15. and their opinion was that by the usage of this Ceremoniall worship they were justified either wholly excluding Christ or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law Now it 's true the Apostles in demolishing this errour do ex abundanti shew that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law but neither of the Morall Law do justifie but that benefit we have by Christ onely Therefore the Apostles when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute they do it in respect of justification not obligation for the maine Question was Whether the Ceremoniall Law did still oblige and their additionall errour was that if it did oblige we should still be justified by the performance of those acts so that the Apostles do not joyn the Morall and Ceremoniall Law in the issue of obligation for though the Jewes would have held they were not justified by them yet they might not have practised them but in regard of justification and this is the first Argument The second Argument is from the Scripture urging the Morall Law upon Gentiles converted as obliging of them with the ground and reason of it which is that they were our fathers so that the Jews and Christians beleeving are looked upon as one people Now that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted as a commandment heretofore delivered is plain When Paul writeth to the Romans chap. 13. 8 9. he telleth them Love is the fulfilling of the Law and thereupon reckons up the commandments which were given by Moses Thus when he writeth to the Ephesians that were not Jews cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother because it 's the first Commandment with promise Now
truly the opposition that seemeth to be in those words It hath been said to them of old but I say unto you makes me incline to the former way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case It is also demanded who are meant by those of old to what age that doth extend Some referre it to those times only that were between Esdras and Christ but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then and thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally except Act 21. 16. referreth to the times of Moses or the Prophets Secondly Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old be the Law and words of Moses or the additions of corrupt glossers And that most of them are the expresse words of Moses it is plain as Thou shalt not kill or Commit adultery but the doubt lyeth upon two places The first is ver 21. Shall be in danger of judgement Here is say some a two-fold corruption 1. By adding words which are not in the Scripture for they speake peremptorily He shall dye whereas these words seem to be obscure and doubtfull He shall be brought before the judges to be tryed whether he be guilty or no. The second corruption they conceive in the sense and that is as if the Pharisees did understand the Commandment only to forbid actuall murder but not murderous thoughts affections or intentions And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth as is to be shewed afterwards but for the former I do something doubt because though that addition be not exprest in so many words yet there seemeth to be that which is equivalent for Numb 35. 30. there we read the murderer who was to be put to death was to be tryed by witnesses which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause The second particular is that ver 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy where some learned men observe a three-fold depravation 1. An implyed one as if a friend were only a neighbour 2. A plain omission for Lev. 19. it 's added as thy self which is here omitted 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted but expresly prohibited as Exod. 23. 4. Prov. 25. 21. And this may probably be thought an interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees arguing on the contrary that if we were to love our neighbours then we were to hate our enemies yet there are some who would make the sense of this in the Scripture that is in a limited sense to the Canaanites for they think that because they were commanded to make no Covenant with them but to destroy them and not to pity them therefore this is as much as to hate them and thereupon they understand the two fore quoted places that speak of relieving of our enemies to be only meant of enemies that were Jews their Country-men and not of strangers And the Jews thought they might kill any idolaters Therefore Tacitus saith of them there was misericordia in promptu apud suos mercy to their own but contra omnes alios hostile odium hostile hatred against all others yet this command of God to destroy those Nations some understand not absolutely but limitedly if so be they did refuse the conditions of peace I therefore incline to those who think it a perverse addition of the Scribes and Pharisees yet am not able to say the other is false 3. Whether our Saviour do oppose himself here to others as a Law-giver or as an Interpreter cleansing away the mud and filth from the fountain And this indeed is worthy the disquisition for this chapter hath been taken by the Manichees and Marcionites of old and by other erroneous persons of late to countenance great errours for some have said that the Author of the Old-Testament and the New Testament are contrary some have said that the New-Testament or the Gospel containeth more exact and spirituall duties then the Old Hence they conclude that many things were lawful then which are not now and they instance in Magistracy resisting of injuries swearing and loving of our enemies and many counsels of perfection added And this is a very necessary Question for hereby will be laid open the excellency of the Law when it shall be seen that Jesus Christ setting aside the positive precepts of Baptisme and the Lords Supper c. commanded no new duty but all was a duty before that is now Now that our Saviour doth only interpret and not adde new Laws will appear 1. From that protestation and solemn affirmation he makes before he cometh to instruct the hearers about their duties Think not that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it Now although it be true that Christ may be said to fulfill the Law diverse wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his doctrinall fulfilling it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking of the Law and if this be so then our Saviours intent was that he came not to teach them any new duty to which they were not obliged before onely he would better explicate the Law to them that so they might be sensible of sin more then they were and discover themselves to be fouler and more abominable then ever they judged themselves Thus Theophylact As a painter doth not destroy the old lineaments only makes them more glorious and beautifull so did Christ about the Law In the next place Christ did not adde new duties which were not commanded in the Law because the Law is perfect and they were bound not to adde to it or detract from it Therefore we are not to continue a more excellent way of duty then that prescribed there Indeed the Gospel doth infinitely exceed in regard of the remedy prescribed for afflicted sinners and the glorious manifestation of his grace and goodnesse but if we speak of holy and spirituall duties there cannot be a more excellent way of holinesse this being an idea and representation of the glorious nature of God 3. That nothing can be added to the Law appeareth by that Commandment of loving God with all our heart and soul Now there can be nothing greater then this and this command is not only indicative of an end which we are to aime at but also preceptive of all the means which tend thereunto And lastly our Saviour saith not Except your righteousnesse exceed that of Moses his Law or which was delivered by him but that of the Scribes and Pharisees implying by that plainly his intent was to detect and discover those formall and hypocriticall wayes which they pleased themselves in when indeed they never understood the marrow and excellency of the Law Question 4. What was the opinion received among the Pharisees concerning the Commandments of God That you may know the just ground our Saviour had thus to expound the Law it will be manifest if you consider the generall opinion
were of Now say they this spirit is the spirit of the New Testament which is opposed to the Spirit of Elias in the Old The answer is obvious that Christ doth not there oppose the Spirit of the New Testament the Old together but their spirit and Elias his spirit What Elias did he was moved unto by the Spirit of God not for any private revenge but that the glory of God might be illustrated Now this fire of theirs was rash and vindicative It was not elementary fire but culinary nourished by low and unworthy considerations In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour John 8. to the adulteresse where he doth not proceed to the stoning of her but rather freeth her The answer is that Christ in his first coming was not as a Judge and therefore did not take upon him to medle in temporall punishments only as a minister he laboured to bring them unto repentance both the woman and the accusers And whereas againe it 's objected that this way of putting to death is against charity and love of mens souls because many are put to death without any seeming repentance which is presently to send them to Hell The answer is that all Magistrates they are to take care for the salvation of the melefactors soules as much as in them lyeth but if they doe perish in their sins this ariseth not from justice done which is rather to bring them in mind of their sins and to humble them but it cometh from the frowardnesse obstinacy in their owne hearts And in that we see a Magistracy confirmed in the Gospel we need not require an expresse command in the New Testament for the putting of some malefactors to death The third thing which they say was allowed in the Law but forbid by Christ in the Gospel is Warre And certainly we may reade in Antiquity that the Christians did refuse warre but not universally for there were Christian souldiers only there were some peculiar causes why in those times the Christians might decline it As first because in their military oath there was a calling upon a heathen god and their banners lifted up were polluted with idolatry And secondly because they should be forced sometimes to be instruments in accomplishing the Emperours Edicts against the Christians which they would not do Now if we bring places out of the Old-Testament for the lawfulnesse of warrs they care not for say they the laws of Nature and of Moses are to be reformed by the Lawes of Christ God indeed say they gave the Jewes in the Old-Testament leave to fight because they had a temporall inheritance and possession given them which they could not keep but by force of armes now under the New-Testament God hath not done so to his people Thus they say but this is a shift for we know Abraham by a meere law of nature went to war and delivered his nephew Lot being oppressed by enemies By that Warre is allowed by Christ appeareth plainly by comparing 1. Tim. 2. 3. and Rom. 13. where the Apostle would have us pray for Magistrates supposeth that while they are Magistrates they may be Christians and come to the faith so that thereby we may live a quiet and godly life under them now how can this be unlesse they draw their sword upon offenders And if they cannot in an ordinary legall way be brought to judgement then by force of Armes The second knowne argument is from Luke 3. where John Baptist counselleth the souldiers not to lay downe their office but to look to such duties as were necessary to them in that place and which is to be observed these were mercenary souldiers as it is thought they were at that time As for the Objections they are taken from such considerations as will be examined in the next particular only the Orthodox that do hold war lawfull they do acknowledge many rules necessary for the godly and holy managing of it and it is an hard thing to have an holy camp and this made Austin say in regard of the concomitant evils of it that Omne bellum etiam justum esse detestandum yet not but he thought it necessary to have it used when it concerned the glory of God and the good of the publique LECTVRE XX. MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old c. THere remain two Questions more to be decided in this businesse concerning Christs interpretation of the Law of Moses The one is about the lawfulnesse of repelling force by force The other about applying our selves to the Magistrate to defend us against the injury and violence of others Now that I may not be tedious in the discussing of these I will lay down fome few grounds that serve to the clearing of the truth herein and so proceed to other matter although as you have heard this tendeth much to the dignity and excellency of the Law First therefore take notice that there is in all a cursed pronenesse to do things by way of revenge Insomuch that there is not one in a thousand that doth rise up in practise to this excellent way and rule of patience The Heathens they thought to revenge our selves was lawfull Thus Tully It is the first office of Justice to hurt no body unlesse first provoked by injury O quam simplicem veramque sententiam saith Lactantius duorum verborm adjectione corrupit But Seneca he was against this Immane verbum est ultio and Qui ulsciscitur excusatiùs peccat Now whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about the lawfulnesse it 's certain the practises of men are much contaminated this way In State and Civil matters in Church matters what a revengefull spirit breatheth in men This certainly cometh much short of our Saviours Directions There is no injury or violence offered unto thee but in stead of revengefull affections there may be holy mortifying thoughts in thee As when Sheba cursed David see how that brought him to the sense of sinne to look up unto God more then to the instrument All defamations and reproaches may serve to make thy graces more splendent As Plutarch observeth the Gardener planteth his unsavory herbs Garlike and Onyons neer his sweetest Roses that so the smell thereof may be the more prized That was an excellent temper of Calvin when reviled by Luther he said Etiamsi Lutherus millies me diabolum vocet ego tamen illum insignem Domini servum agnosco Although Luther call me a thousand times a Divell yet I acknowledge him an eminent servant of God Why is it that there are such suspicions heart-burnings defamations of one another hard speeches and censures but because this lesson of Christ is not learned by us 2. Consider this that the primitive Christians have gone very farr in this Question holding it unlawfull to defend a mans self from another who would kill us by killing of the Invader Austin saith he
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
howsoever I have already delivered many things that do 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 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 do 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 Jews and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God which is not to be understood of the unity of his Essence but Will and Promise Now when all this is asserted he maketh an objection which is usuall with him in this Epistle and he doth it for this end to take away the calumny and reproach cast upon him by his adversaries as one that would destroy the Law The objection then is this propounded by way of interrogation to affect the more Do we make voyd the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle used this word in this Chapter ver 3. and it fignifieth to make empty and voide so that The Law shall be of no use or operation Now to this the Apostle answereth negatively by words of defiance and detestation God forbid So that by this expression you see how intolerable that doctrine ought to be unto the people of God that would take away the Law And the Apostle doth not only defie this objection but addeth we establish the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Metaphor from those that do corroborate and make firm a pillar or any such thing that was falling It hath much troubled Interpreters how Paul could say he established the Law especially considering those many places in his Epistles which seem to abrogate it Some understand it thus That the righteousnesse of faith hath it's witnesse from the Law and Prophets as ver 21. in this Chapter so that in this sense they make the Law established because that which was witnessed therein doth now come to passe Even as our Saviour said Moses did bear witnesse of him But this interpretation doth not come up to the Apostles meaning Those that limit this speech to the Ceremoniall Law do easily interpret it thus That the ceremonies and types were fulfilled in Christ who being the substance and body they are all now fulfilled in him But the Apostle comprehends the Morall Law under the word Law The Papists they make the Gospel a new Law and they compare it with the old Law having the Spirit as two things differing only gradually so that they say the old Law is established by the new as the childhood is established by elder age which is not by abolition but perfection That which I see the Orthodox pitch upon is that the Law is established three wayes by the Gospel First whereas the Law did threaten death to every transgressor this is established in Christ who satisfied the justice of God Secondly in that the Law requireth perfect obedience this is also fulfilled in Christ Now this is a matter worth discussion Whether the righteousnesse we are yet justified by be the righteousness of the Law For those learned men that are against the imputation of Christs active obedience they urge this argument which seemeth to carry much strength with it That if Christs active obedience be made ours and we justified by that then are we still justified by the works of the Law and so the righteousnesse of faith and works is all one faith in us and works in Christ If therefore active obedience be made ours as I conceive the truth to be in that doctrine then we may easily see the Law is established Thirdly but lastly which I take to be the truth and Austin heretofore interpreteth it so the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain Grace in some measure to fulfill the Law so that we still keep the Law in the preceptive and informative part of it and do obtain by faith in Christ obedience in some degree to it which obedience also though it be not the Covenant of grace yet is the way to Salvation LECTVRE XXII ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law THis Text is already explained and there are two Observations do naturally arise from it as first That it is an hard thing so to set up Christ grace as not thereby be thought to destroy the Law Thus was Paul misunderstood by some and so the Antinomians not rightly understanding in what latitude the Orthodox in their disputations against Popery did oppose the Law to the Gospel were thereby plunged into a dangerous errour But on this point I will not insist The second doctrine is that which I intend namely That the doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law And this doctrine will directly lead us to lay our hands on the chiefe pillars of that house which the Antinomians have built The Question then at this time to be discussed is Whether the Law be abrogated or no by Christ to the beleevers under the Gospel And this Question I will answer by severall propositions that may conduce to the clearing of the the truth for it would seem as if the Scripture held out contradictions in this point In my Text it 's denyed that the Apostles do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make void the Law yet 2 Cor. 3. 11. The Apostle speaking of the Law hath this passage If that which be done away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the word is expresly used that yet here is denied so Ephes 2 14. Christ is described 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that maketh voyd the hand-writing against us And in that place the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when yet Mat. 5. he denied that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve the Law Grave therefore and serious is Chemnitius his admonition In all other things generall words beget confusion and obscurity but in the doctrine of the abrogation of the Law they are very dangerous unless it be distinctly explained how it is abrogated In the first place therefore consider That about a Law there are these affections if I may call them so There is an Interpretation a dispensation or relaxation and these differ from an abrogation for the former do suppose the Law still standing in force though
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
only take notice that we cannot make a third different estate wherein the Covenant of grace should be dispensed as an Antinomian author doth for our Saviour seemeth fully to conclude that he did belong to the Old Testament therefore he saith The least in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he Although in this respect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him that he did not prophesie of a Messias to come but pointed with his hand to him who was already come And as for the text it selfe none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came for least any should by that expression think so our Saviour addeth Heaven and earth shall sooner passe away then that one title should fall to the ground Therefore the meaning is that the Law in respect of the typicall part of it as it did shadow forth and prefigure a Christ so it was to cease Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together as agreeing in one general thing which is to foretell of Christ and to typifie him And this will be clearer if you compare Matth 11. 13. with this of Luke where it is thus set down All the Prophets and the Law prophesied unto John whereby it is cleare that he speakes of the typicall part of the Law yet not so as if the Ceremonies were then immediatly to cease only from that time they began to vanish The next place of Scripture is that famous instance so much urged in this controversie Rom. 6. 15. For you are not under the Law but under grace Now to open this consider these things 1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law and what was the proper state of the Question in those dayes And that appeareth Act. 1. 5. where you have a relation made of some beleeving Jewes that were of the sect of the Pharisees who pressed the necessity of Circumcision and so would joyn the mistery of Moses and Christ together Now it seemeth though the Apostles in this councell had condemned that opinion yet there were many that would still revive this errour and therefore the Apostle in this Epistle to the Romans and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this false doctrine and labour much against it Stapleton and other papists they think that the controversie was only about the Ceremoniall Law and this they do to maintain their justification by the works of the Law when wrought by grace But though it must be granted that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occasion of that great difference and the most principall thing in question yet the Apostle to set forth the fulnesse of grace and Christ doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Morall Law for the Jewes did generally think that the knowledge and observation of the Morall Law without Christ was enough for their peace and comfort That the Apostle argueth against the Law in their abused sense of it is plain because when he speaks of it in it's own nature he commends it and extols it The Jewes because they had the Law given them in such a Divine and glorious manner attributing too much to themselves thought by the obedience to this alone without Christ to be justified as appeareth Rom 10. 1. Hence the Apostle speaketh against it in their sense looking for Justification by it as if a learned man confuting some Philosophers which do hold that the second causes do work by their own proper strength without any concourse of God he must in his arguments suppose such a power of the second cause which the adversary pleadeth for in his minde and in expressions sometimes yet none can gather from that therefore there is such a power in the second causes And if they could perswade themselves that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God though they lived in grosse disobedience to the Morall Law as Isai 1. alibi it many times appeareth they did how much more when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law must they needs be secure of their favour with God And in this sense it is that the Apostle speaks seemingly derogatory to the Law because they took it without Christ Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements when yet we know they were signes of an Evangelicall grace 2. That the Apostle useth the word Law in divers senses which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point Now in most of those places where the Law seemeth to be abolished it is taken in one of these two senses Either first synecdochically the Law put for part of the Law to wit for that part which actually condemneth and accuseth as when the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation whereas we may say A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription as well as against a thing by accusation Or secondly the word Law is put for the ministery of Moses which dispensation was farre inferiour unto the ministery of the Gospel And in this sense the Apostle doth much use it in the Epistle to the Galathians and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes So that here is a continuall mistake when the Antinomians heap place upon place which seem to abolish the Law and do not first declare what Law and in what sense those places are to be expounded 3. Consider these Phrases Of the Law Without the Law Under the Law and In the Law Without the Law is two wayes First he is without the Law that is without the knowledge and understanding of it Thus the Gentiles are without the Law And secondly Without the Law that is without the sense and experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law and thus Paul Rom. 7. said when the Law came he died Now the godly though they are denied to be under the Law yet they are not said to be without the Law for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it both in respect of knowledge and observation of it then might beleevers be said to be without the Law and to this without the Law is opposed In the Law Rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vulgar In legem Beza cum lege It signifieth those that do enjoy the Law and yet sinne against it And much to this purpose is that Phrase Of the Law Rom. 4. 14. which sometimes is as much as Of the Circumcision to wit those that are initiated into the Ministery of Moses but in other places it signifieth as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the opposite to it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver 14 where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law
he cannot meane the Law of Moses for all know that was long after but he meanes what 's done in obedience to the Morall Law so farre as it was then revealed The Apostle useth also another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law which is to be understood in this sense by works done in conformity to the Law and in this sense the Apostle urgeth that righteousnesse or the promise are not by the Law But all the difficulty in this controversie is about the phrase Under the Law Therefore take notice 4. There is a voluntary being under the Law as Christs was and there is to be under it in an ill sense A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law is acceptable and thus the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 20. the Apostle saith he was made to some as under the Law though there indeed he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is added because of the ceremoniall part of the Law Therefore he calleth himselfe excellently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a godly man be not properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he addeth to Christ lest they should think that he spoke of the whole Law the ceremoniall part of it which was abolished by Christ so that a godly man in a well explained sense may be said to be under the Law Aquinas Comment ad Cap. 6. v. 14. Hath this distinction A man may be under the Law or subjected to it two wayes First willingly and readily as Christ Secondly unwillingly by way of compulsion when not out of love but feare men do obey the Law this is sinful in the former sense all beleevers may be said to be under the Law but yet because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense as here in the text and in that place tell me ye that desire to be under the Law though Law there be used for the whole Ministery of Moses and not of the Morall Law let us consider in what sense this is denied to the Godly 5. That Interpretation of some though of solid Judgement who make the phrase Not to be under the Law to be as much as Not under the curse of the Law or Not obnoxious to the guilt by it seemeth not to agree with the context I know this is generally received as the sense of the place and there is this argument urged for it because the Apostle maketh an objection from hence Shall we sinne because we are not under the Law but under grace Therefore it should seem that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it and grace for pardoning and free Justification but because the Apostle is here speaking of sanctification both in this Chapter and the Chapter following I preferre Beza's interpretation which makes the being under the Law to be the same in sense with under sin for the Apostle speaking of himselfe as carnall Chap. 7. saith that the Law wrought in him all manner of evill and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man so that the more the Law is applyed to him the more doth his corruption break forth Now then this is the Apostles argument Let not sin reign in you for now you are not under the Law stirring up sin and provoking it in you but under grace not justifying or pardoning as properly and immediately meant here though they were under that also but sanctifying and healing And the Apostle maketh the objection following What then shall we sin because we are not under the Law because the phrase was ambiguous and might be thought to have such a sense as the Libertines make it to have to wit to do every thing as we please without any controule by any Law and in this explication we shall see a sweet harmony in the context The third instance is Rom. 7. especially in the beginning of the Chapter but the answer to the former Objection will also cleare this because the apostle continueth in the same matter explaining what it is to be under the Law by a similitude from a wife married to an husband who is bound to him so long as he liveth but when he dyeth she is free Now in the reddition of the similitude there is some difference among Commentators but I take it thus Sin which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions that is the former husband the soul had and lusts they are the children hereof but when we are regenerated then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soul so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband but sin is properly the husband And if you will say the Morall Law you must understand it in this sense only as it doth inflame the heart to all evil therefore the Apostle as is well observed by the Learned doth not say the Law is dead but we are dead for indeed the Law is never so much alive as in the godly who do constantly obey it live accordingly to it This will also serve for that place Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the spirit ye are not under the Law That is under the Law forcibly compelling Austin distinguisheth of four states of men those who are Ante legem and these commit sin without knowledge of it Sub lege and these commit it with some fighting but are overcome Sub gratia and these do fight and shall overcome and Sub pace these we may make to be those in heaven LECTVRE XXIIII DEUT. 4. 13. And he declared unto you his Covenant which he commanded you to performe even ten Commandements c. I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule and now come to consider of it as a Covenant that so the whole Law may be fully understood I shall not be long upon this though the matter be large and difficult though the subject be like the Land of Canaan yet there are many Gyants and great Objections in the way I will rather handle it positively then controversally for I do not finde in any point of Divinity learned men so confused and perplexed being like Abrahams Ram hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head as here That I may methodically proceed observe the context of this verse and the scope Moses being to perswade the people of Israel to obedience of the Law useth severall forcible arguments As ver 1. The good and profitable issue thereof which is to live and possesse the land not as if this mercy were only temporall but by this was represented eternall life in heaven A second argument is from the perfection of it that nothing may be added to it or detracted from it The third argument is from the great wisdome and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations there being no people under the sun that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had and if that be true of Bernard
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
must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and dark And it is to be observed that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision and even all the Ceremoniall Law as the Morall yea the first rise of the cōtroversie was from that Now all must confesse that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ or grace but rather included them And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative It is true the Jewes they rested upon these and did not look to Christ but so do our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appear from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with blood And this did signifie Christ for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortall man When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour it is to be understood typically even as the sacrifices did wash away sin typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or real some think Christ likewise was the Angell spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and do them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of works God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the promise together making the inheritance by one not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong objections made from those places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture do urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas they reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sin if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seem to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all do acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why do you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministery of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as seperated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTVRE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that selfe confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applyed universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein and Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of works meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees and he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speaks here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they do Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning
up his works and never naming the grace of God is a boaster by the Law of works but the Publican that looketh upon himselfe only as a sinner and so judgeth himself he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they mean by works here in the Text those which go before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foul errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We do not come by works to faith but by faith to Works But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God If you ask why works do imply boasting though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God The answer is ready because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us which yet is defective that is wholly to be given unto Christ The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words is That although the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some sense the Law and Gospel do oppose and thwart one another And this matter I undertake because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered It is an errour saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit cap. 9. in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousness and saith he this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary meaning by the Law that rule of life whereby God doth require of us that which is his own given us no ground of hope unlesse in every respect we keep the Law but saith he quum de totâ lege agitur when he speaks of the Law more largely taken he makes them to differ only in respect of clearer manifestation or as Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant they differ not essentially but as we say the old and new Moon Therefore before I come to shew the exact opposition take notice of two things as a foundation first that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old-Testament the New and then they differ onely gradually for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God though Socinians deny it although indeed in respect of the Gospel it may comparatively be said no spirit and no grace as when it is said The holy Ghost was not yet given because it was not so plentifully given Or secondly the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law only this is the reason why we cannot say The Spirit of God or grace or life is by the Law because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes it is not of the Law but of the grace of God or the Gospel Therefore whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together we must be sure to make the parallel equall and to take them so oppositely that we may not give the one more advantage or lesse then the nature of it doth crave and desire In the second place therefore in this controversie still remember to carry along with you the different use of the word Law as to this point for if you take Law strictly and yet make it a Covenant of grace you confound the righteousnesse of works and of faith together as the Papists do but if largely then there may be an happy reconciliation For the better opening of this consider that as the word Law so the word Gospel may be taken largely or strictly We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word or whether it be used any where of a sorrowfull message as well as glad newes as some say in two places it is used 1. Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers Non infrequens esse specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi It is enough to our purpose that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely and sometimes more strictly when it 's taken largely it signifieth the whole doctrine that the Apostles were to preach Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel i. e. the doctrine preaching of Christ Or else it is taken most strictly as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings c. In which strict sence it 's called the Gospel of peace and of the grace of God So that you see the word Law is taken differently largely and strictly thus also is the word Gospel Now it 's a great dispute Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel or no I finde the Lutherans Antinomians and Calvinists to speak differently but of that when we take the Law and Gospel in their most strict sense Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument that the Protestants do deny the necessity of good works because they hold that the Gospel hath no precepts or threatnings in it lib. 4. de Justif cap. 2. And he urgeth against them that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is said to be revealed from heaven in the Gospel but as is to be shewed he there doth mistake the state of the controversie taking the word Gospel in a larger sense then they intended Thus on the other side Islebius the father of the Antinomians he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue but from the Gospel that to preserve the purity of doctrine we ought to resist all those who teach the Gospel must not be preached but to those who are made contrite by the Law whereas the right unfolding of the word Gospel would make up quickly those breaches The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception I shall first shew the opposition between the Law and the Gospel taken in their large sense and then in the limited sense And this is worth the while because this is the foundation of all our comfort if rightly understood Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New-Testament or Covenant wherein the Learned speak very differently and as to my apprehension most confusedly I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New which Austin Chemnitius and others urge because it presseth the old man condemneth that whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new
I rather take it to be so called because the old was to cease and vanish away being before the other in time Now in my method I will lay down the false differences and then name the true The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections And for this they are very resolute granting indeed that Christ and eternall things were promised in the Old Testament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament whereupon they say that grace and salvation was not till Christ came And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Testament they take rigidly and universally as if there had been no eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge That his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seem plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spiritual held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the New Testament hath added more perfect Laws and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though Godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not only command to pray but gave a prescript form of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they go on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and the Gospel capable of no opposite considerarion no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of works and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse errour whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when we speak of the Law and Gospelstrictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediatly to heaven therefore say they we do not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi The blood of Christ is the key of paradise but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I finde such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith he saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which he brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sin and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places he brings Jer. 5. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sin not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jews which God would bring back from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel only for had not the Godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sins viz. Christs blood as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sin in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full grown heirs What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see less sin in their children while young then when grown up and their childishness doth more excuse them And although children only have a rod for their faults yet men grown up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therfore he seeth sin in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest work of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to
of Christ make us to repent of sin and all the love he shewed therein Do not godly Ministers to work people into an hatred of sin tell them the price of blood is in every sin committed Is it not said that they shall look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn for their sins I answer all this is true but then these things work by way of an object not as a command and it is from the Law that we should shew our selves kind unto him who loved us unto death so that the object is indeed from the Gospel but the command to be affected with his death because of his kindness therein manifested doth arise from Gods Law Let therefore those who say that the preaching of the Gospel will humble men and break their hearts for their sins consider how that it is true by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects Let the use of this doctrine be to direct Christians in their practicall improvement of Law and Gospel without hindring each other There are many things in Christianity that the people of God make to oppose one another when yet they would promote each other if wisely ordered Thus they make their joy and trembling their faith and repentance their zeal and prudence the Law and Gospel to thwart one another whereas by spiritual wisdom they might unite them take the Law for a goad the Gospel for a cordial from the one be instructed from the other be supported when thy heart is careless and dull run thither to be excited when thy soul is dejected and fearfull throw thy self into the armes of the Gospel The Law hath a loveliness in it as well as the Gospel the one is a pure character and Image of the holiness of God the other is of the mercy and goodness of God so that the consideration of either may wonderfully inflame thy affections and raise them up LECTVRE XXVIII ROM 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth AS the Physitian saith Peter Martyr who intends to give strong physick which may expell noxious humours in the diseased body doth prepare the body first by some potions to make it fluid and fit for operation so Paul being sharply to accuse the Jews and to drive them out of their selfe righteousness doth manifest his love to them sugaring the bitter pill that they might swallow it with more delight And this his love is manifested partly by his expression brethren partly by his affections and prayers my hearts desire and prayer The occasion of this his affection is the zeale that they have for God but in a wrong way As the skillfull husbandman that seeth a piece of ground full of weeds and brambles wisheth he had that ground which by culture and tillage would be made very fruitfull Amo unde amputem said the Orator I love the wit that needs some pruning The luxuriancie is a signe of fertility This zeale was not a good zeale partly because it wanted knowledge and therefore was like Sampson without his eyes partly because it made them proud which the Apostle fully expresseth in two particulars 1 They sought to establish their owne righteousness They sought this did imply their willfull pride and arrogancy and to establish which supposeth their righteousness was weak and infirme ready to fall to the ground but they would set it up for all that as the Philistims would their Dagon though he was tumbled downe before the Ark. 2. The Apostle expresseth it signally when he saith They submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God In the originall They were not submitted in the passive signification which still supposeth the great arrogancy that is in a man naturally being unwilling to deny his owne righteousness and to take Christ for all This being so take notice by the way of a foule errour of the Antinomian who denying assurance and comfort by signes of grace laboureth to prove that an unregenerate man may have universall obedience and sincere obedience bringing this instance of the Jews for sincere obedience But sincerity may be taken two waies First as it opposeth gross hypocrisie and so indeed the Jews zeale was not hypocriticall because they did not goe against their conscience or Secondly it may be taken as it opposeth the truth of grace and so the Jews zeale was not a true gracious zeale for the reasons above named Now my Text that is given as a reason why the Jews did look to their owne righteousness not that of Gods because they neglected Christ who is here said to be the end of the Law for righteousness The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie the extreme and last end of a thing Thus Mark. 13. 7. The end is not yet so those who are against the calling of the nation of the Jews bring that place 1 Thes 2. ver 16. Wrath is come upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if there were no mercy to be expected But this may admit of another exposition Sometimes the word is used for perfection and fullfilling of a thing acording to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neer bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandment is charity may seem to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fulness of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when he gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to
the scope of the Apostle who speaketh of such a Law that the Jews expected righteousness by in the performing of it which must be the Morall Law only Now when we speak of the Morall Law having Christ for the end of it then in the second place that may be considered two wayes 1. Either rigidly and in an abstracted consideration from the administration of it as it doth require perfect obedience and condemning those that have it not now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope or end of the Law but it is meerly by accident occasionall that a soul abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ only you must know that the Law even so taken doth not exclude a Christ It requireth indeed a perfect righteousness of our own yet if we bring the righteousness of a surety though this be not commanded by the Law yet it is not against the Law or excluded by it otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us 2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration of it by Moses in all the particulars of it and thus Christ was intended directly and not by accident that is God when he gave the Law to the people of Israel did intend that the sense of their impossibility to keep it and infinite danger accrewing thereby to them should make them desire and seek out for Christ which the Jews generally not understanding or neglecting did thereby like Adam go to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakedness their empty externall obedience According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end That an end is two-fold Either such to which a thing doth naturally incline of it self Or secondly that which becometh an end by the meere appointment and ordination of some Agent Now the end of the Law to which naturally it inclineth is eternall life to be obtained by a perfect righteousness in us but the instituted and appointed end which God the Lawgiver made in the promulgation of it was the Lord Christ So that whatsoever the Law commanded promised or threatned it was to stir up the Israelites unto Christ They were not to rest in those precepts or duties but to go on to Christ so that a beleever was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ and when he had found him he was to seek no further but to abide there Now this indeed was a very difficult duty because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour And what is the reason that under the Gospel belevers are still so hardly perswaded to rest only on Christ for righteousness but because of that secret selfe dependance within them Having premised these things I come to shew how Christ is the end of the Law taken largely in the ministry of Moses And in the first place Christ was the scope and end of intention God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience would thereby humble and debase the Israelites so that thereby they should the more earnestly fly unto Christ even as the Israelite stung by a serpent would presently cast his eyes upon the brasen Serpent It is true Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there yet not so but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations And this you have fully set forth in that allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth 3. 7. I shall explain that place because it may be wrested by the Antinomian as if because that kinde of ministery which was by Moses was to be done away and evacuated therefore the preaching of the Law was also to be abrogated but that is far from the Apostles scope for the Apostle his intent there is to shew the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel above that of the Law and that in three respects 1. In regard one is the ministery of death and condemnation the other of life and righteousness Therefore the one is called Letter and the other Spirit Now this you must understand warily taking the Law nakedly and in it self without the Spirit of God and the Gospel with the Spirit for as Beza well observeth if you take the Gospel without Gods Spirit that also is the ministration of death because it is as impossible for us to beleeve as it is to obey the Law by our own power only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel and not to the Law because Christ who is the author of the Gospel is the fountain of life and when any good is wrought by the Law it cometh from the spirit of Christ The second excellency is in regard of continuance and duration The ministery of Moses was to be made void and abolished which is to be understood of that Jewish pedagogy not of every part of it for the Morall as given by Moses doth still oblige us Christians as hath been already proved but the ministery of the Gospel is to abide alwaies that is there is no new ministery to succeed that of the Gospel although in heaven all shall cease The third difference is in regard of glory God caused some materiall glory to shine upon Moses while he gave the Law hereby to procure the greater authority and majesty to the Law but that glory which cometh by the Gospel is spirituall and far more transcendent bringing us at last into eternall glory So that the former glory seemeth to be nothing in comparison of this Even as the light of a candle or torch seemeth to be nothing saith Theophylact when the light of the Sun ariseth Now the Apostle handling these things doth occasionally open an allegory which had not Paul by the Spirit of God found out we neither could or ought to haue done it And the consideration of that will serve much for my present matter I know divers men have divers thoughts about exposition of this place so that there seemeth to be a vail upon the Text as well as upon Moses his face But I shall plainly understand it thus Moses his face shining when he was with God and coming from him doth signifie the glory and excellency of the Law as in respect of Gods counsells and intentions for although the Law did seem to hold out nothing but temporall mercies devoid of Christ and heaven yet as in respect of Gods intention it was far otherwise Now saith the Apostle The Jews were not able to fix their eyes upon this glory that is the carnall Israelites did not behold Christ in the ministery of Moses because a vail is upon their hearts The Apostle makes the vail upon Moses to be a type of the blindness and hardness of heart in the Israelite so that as the vail upon Moses covered the glory of his face so the vail of blindness and stupidity upon the heart of
necessarily by way of consequence inforce the abrogation of the Law And thus though some Antinomians do expresly and boldly assert the abolishing of it at least to beleevers yet those that have more learning and wariness do disclaime it and account it a calumny but even at the same time while they do disclaime it as it is to be shewed presently they hold such assertions as do necessarily inferr the abrogation of it 3. The Law may be doctrinally dissolved by pressing such duties upon men whereby they will be necessitated to breake the commandments of God Thus when the Pharisees taught that whatsoever vow was made concerning any gift they were bound to do it though thereby they were disinabled to honour their parents And this is most remarkably seen in the Church of Rome who by the multitude and necessity of observation of their Church precepts and constitutions make men to break the plain commandments of God Now I shall briefly instance generally about those errours that dissolve Gods Law and then more particularly about the Antinomian doctrine The first Hereticks that opposed it were the Marcionites and Manichees Marcion whom Tertullian calls Mus potincus because of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture to make it serviceable to his errours he among other errours broacheth this That the old Law as he calls it was evill and that it came from an evill god To him in this opinion succeeded Manes who truly might be so called because of his madness although his followers to take away that reproach called him Mannichaeus as much as one that poured forth Manna as some affirme This mans errours though they were very gross yet so propagated that it was two hundred yeares ere they were quieted These and their followers all agreed in this to reject this Law of God There were also Hereticks called Anomi as it were sine lege but their errour was to think that they could by their knowledge comprehend the divine nature And they gave somuch to this their faith that they held Whosoever should imy brace it though he committed hainous and atrocious sins yet thes should do him no hurt Epiphan lib. 3. Haeres 36. But to let pasthese we may say Popery is in a great part Antinomianisme And Antichrist he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that lawless One for is not their doctrine that the Pope may dispense with the Laws of God and that the Pope and Christ have the same Consistory Antinomianisme and in particular we may instance in their taking away the second Commandement out of some Carechismes because it forbiddeth the worshipping of Images Hence Vasquez one of their Goliahs doth expresly maintain that the second Commandement did belong only to the Jews and so not obliging us Christians thinking it impossible to answer our arguments against their Image-worship if that be acknowledged still in force Is there not also a generation of men who do by doctrine deny the fourth Commandement How many late books and practises have been for that opinion But hath it not fallen out according to the later exposition of my Text that they are the least in the Kingdome of heaven men of little account now in the Church while reforming I might likewise speak of some Anabaptists for there are of that sect that disclaim the opinion who overthrow the fifth Commandement by denying Magistracy lawfull for Christians But I will range no further The Antinomians do more fall against this Text then any in that they do not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement but of all even of the whole Law This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time of whom Islebius was the captain he was a School-master and also professor of Divinity at Islebia It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every winde for first he defended with the Orthodox the Saxon Confession of Faith but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim When Luther admonished him of his errour he promised amendment but for all that secretly scattered his errour which made Luther set forth publikely six solemn disputations against the Antinomians that are to be seen in his works which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced and revoked his errour publishing his recantation in print yet when Luther was dead this Euripus did fall into his old errour and publikely defended it Now how justly they might be called Antinomists or as Luther sometimes Nomomachists appeareth by these Propositions which they publikely scattered about in their papers as 1. That the Law is not Worthy to be called the word of God 2. To heare the word of God and so to live is a consequence of the Law 3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel 4. We are with all our might to resist those who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther against which he had his disputations Vol. 1. Sousselberge lib. contra Antin pag. 38. relateth more as 1. The Law doth not shew good works neither is it to be preached that we may do them 2. The Law is not given to Christians therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law 3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel not the Law because Christ did not say Preach the Law but Gospel to every creature 4. The legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us 5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works is blasphemy in Divinity Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text yet at other times the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox Antinomists seemeth to be not Whether a godly man do not delight in the Law and do the works of the Law but Whether he doth it Lege docente urgente mandante the Law teaching urging and commanding As for the latter Antinomians Doctor Taylor and Mr. Burton who preached and wrote against them do record the same opinions of them Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them saith One preached that the whole Law since Christs death is wholly abrogated and abolished Another that to teach obedience to the Law is Popery Another That to do any thing because God commands us or to forbeare any sin because God forbids us is a signe of a morall man and of a dead and unsound Christian Others deliver That the Law is not to be preached and they that do so are Legall Preachers Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or
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
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
Law in our souls Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ Instance 1â— Answer 1. Answer 2. Gerhard Instance 2. Answ Instance 3. Answ Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal 3. 2. Errour 1. Errour 2. Errour 3. The Text opened The Law established three wayes by the Gospel 'T is hard to set up Christ and grace and not be thought to destroy the Law The doctrine of Christ and grace doth establish the Law Interprtation dispensation c. affections of a Law We may say that the Morall Law is mitigated as to our persons but 't is not abrogated Three parts of the Law The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant but not as it is a Rule The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth but not as a Law The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Testament Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to beleevers and unbelevers The Law to a beleever is abrogated 1. In respect of justification 2. In respect of condemnation 3. In respect of rigid obedience 4. In respect of tefrour and slavish obedience 5. In respect of the increase of sin 6. In respect of many Circumstantials 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule appears 1. From the different phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law 2. From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever 3. In that disobedience is still a sin 4. Because it differs from other lawes in respect of causes of abrogation Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only answered * Minimum maximi est majus maximo minimi The Apostle argueth against the Law in comparison of Christ The word Law taken in a two-fold sense These Phrases of the Law Without the Law under the Law and In the Law explained A two-fold being under the Law The commonly received sense of that Phrase Not to be under this Law rejected Beza's inrerpretation of the phrase approv'd Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant appears 1. In that it haâ—h the name of a Covenant 2 In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Obiections impugning the former Arguments answered The words opened The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. Doctr. The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect The different use of the word Law carefully to be observed What meant by Law taken largely and what strictly False differences between the Law and the Gospel 1. Of Anabaptists and Socinians affirming That they under the Law in the Old Testament enioyed only temporall blessings 2. Of Papists 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Laws under the New Testament 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no oposite consideration 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immedatly to heaven 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New 2. That the Covenant God made with the Iews this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants 3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel not so under the law because no sacrifice save for sins of ignorance Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance 2. No legall sâ—crifice therefore no remission oâ— sin in consequent 3. The sin against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel 5 That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall only Heavenly obiects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old 1. It is so for the credenda 2. For the speranda 3. For the facienda The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel then under the Law The Iews under the Law were in a more servile condition then Christians under the Gospel The continuation of the Law was to last but till the coming of Christ Difference between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken 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 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness the Gospel brings pardon through Christ 3. If righteousness were by the Law eternall life were a debt but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel for broken-hearted sinners 5. The Law conditional the Gospel absolute Repentance strictly taken is distinguished from Faith The Law and the Gospel are inseperably united in the Word and Ministery Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel Vnbeliefe a sin against the Law as well as the Gospel The Gospel taken strictly comprehends no more then the glad tidings of a Saviour Zeal that either wants knowledge or puffs up no good zeale Sincerity taken two waies The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law 2 Cot. 3. 7. opened The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation 2. Because of its duration it being to abide alwayes but the ministery of Moses to be abolished 3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spirituall that which shone upon Moses but materiall What signified by the shining of Moses his face 2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in vouchsafing us his Spirit that we may obey it 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his obedience to it is made curs Object Aâ—sw The belâ—ever is the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness Righteousness is the end for which Christ is thus the perfection of the Law The beleever hath great cause to bless God for providing such a righteousness for him The Text opened What meant by Kingdom of heaven Doctr. The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law Covertly there waies 1 When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is 2 VVhen they hold principles by necessary consequence inforcing the abrogation of it 3. VVhen they press such duties up on men as will necessitate them to break the commandements of God The Marcionites and Manichees the first oppugners of the Law Postions of Antinomians Antidotes against Antinomian errours 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damn thee 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace