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
so uncertain and many things may fall out and this is very probable Only if you understand it the former way you must not take it so as if an oath were such a lawfull thing as that it is propter se appetendum but only as physick is which is sometimes necessary for another thing Thus therefore having cleared that our Saviour intendeth no higher thing then that was lawfull before give me leave to reprove the common practise among men who say they are Christians about swearing If you observe men in their discourse in their trading do they carry themselves so as if Christ had said Sweare not at all and not rather as if he said Sweare alwayes and altogether Oh therefore that this common customary way of swearing which doth so directly oppose Christ were wholy laid aside The very Heathens will condemne us herein and among the Heathens ex animisui sententià was in stead of an oath It seemeth this custome of swearing in discourse hath been of old for Chrysostome and Austin are very vehement against it in their Sermons Now let us proceed There are some who from those words of our Saviour spoken ver 38 39 40 41. do gather that now under the Gospel it 's not lawfull 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatsoever 2. That it 's not lawfull to warre 3. Not to go to law in any case 4. Not to seek to a Magistrate for the defence of our selves Therefore in these opinions they thinke they hold forth much of Christian meeknesse and patience but before we come to the particulars let us consider in what sense it'a said An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth This kind of Law was an ancient one among other Nations Aristotle cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we read of a double retaliation one Pythagoricall which was wicked and ungodly holding that if a man did thieve from one the same might thieve from him again The other Mosaicall which was good and had justice in it Onely the Question is Whether this be literally to be understood that it was lawfull for a man who had his eye or tooth struck out by another to desire of the Judge that he who did this violence should also have his eye or tooth beaten out You may reade the Law Exod. 21. 23. and how it ought to be moderated by Judges private men not being left to revenge themselves Deut. 19. 19. This Law was not given as one wickedly saith to indulge the childish condition of the Jewes as being apt to revenge and therefore makes it an imperfect Law saying that many lawes of men were more perfect lawes but it was given against private revenge and the end was that justice might be done Now some have said this law was literally observed and that a man who was wounded by another hee himselfe was wounded againe But I doe rather thinke that the command in the letter of it was not observed but that a recompence was made according to the judgment of the Judge for the losse and it would have been a very hard thing if one man had wounded another to inflict just such a wound neither deeper nor broader nor doing no more hurt upon the man who offered violence Wee therefore come to the Questions And first concerning capitall punishments to be inflicted upon some offenders There are those that say It doth not stand with the goodnesse and meeknesse of a Gospel-spirit to put any man to death for any crime whatsoever But the falsenesse hereof doth appeare 1. In that it 's a command of God from the beginning with a perpetuall reason added to it that he who was guilty of murder should be put to death so that at least in this case there ought to be a capitall punishment Now the command that God gave is Gen. 9. 6. Whatsoever sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood beshed and there is the reason given of it because the image of God viz. in his soule is in him To elude this they say that this is not a command but a meere prediction God doth here fore-tell say they what will befall the murderer not what a Magistrate is bound to do But that is a meere evasion for why should God fore-tell this but because it was a duty to be done Therefore it 's not said indefinitly He that sheddeth mans blood his blood shall be shed but he addeth by man it shall be shed Therefore howsoever a great Scholar saith that those are deceived who think capitall punishments are appointed by the Law of Nature or any perpetuall Law of God yet this place demonstrateth the contrary neither is it any matter that Plato would have reduced into his common-wealth the abrogation of capital punishments or that the Romans for a while did use no heavier punishment then deportation or banishment we must live by commands and not by examples especially humane It's instanced in Cain who though he killed his brother Abel yet God did not destroy him It must be granted that Gods indulgence to Cain was very great for he doth not only spare his life but sets a marke upon him to preserve him what this was they are most to be commended who dare not determine it because the Scripture is silent in it and not only so but he addeth a more severe punishment to that man that shall kill Cain then was due to the killing of any man Although it may be thought God in suffering Cain to live was not so much indulgent as severe in suffering him to be an instance of his displeasure against him to all the world As Psal 59. 11. Slay them not saith the Psalmist lest my people forget so that it is one thing what God may do for speciall reasons and another what the common Law of Nature and the perpetuall Law of God requireth A second Argument for capitall punishents under the Gospel is from the Magistrates office who Rom. 13. is said not to beare the sword in vaine Now the sword doth imply a power of life and death and therefore Paul said If I have done any thing worthy of death implying there were some things that did deserve it Lastly that to put to death men for faults is not repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel appeareth by the judgement upon Ananias and Sapphira You cannot reade of a-more severe expression under the Law then that was of the Gospel so that as we are indeed to labour for the meeknes and patience of a Christian yet we are not to forget zeale for Godsglory and the publick good it being cruelty to the good to spare the bad and if we would pity such a man offending we must much more pity the common-wealth That which is objected to this is 1. The rebuke that our Saviour gave to his Disciples when they would have had fire come downe from heaven They are reproved upon this ground because they knew not what spirit they
all difficulties The Lacedemonians when they went to war did sacrifice to Love because love only could make hardship and wounds and death it selfe easie Doe thou therefore pray that the love of God may be shed abroad in thine heart and consider these two things 1. How the Law laid upon Christ to dye and suffer for thee was not a burthen or terrour to him How doth he witnesse this by crying out With desire I have desired to drink of this cup Think with thy self If Christ had been as unwilling to die for me as I to pray to him to be patient to be holy what had become of my soule If Christ therefore said of that Law to be a Mediatour for thee Lo I come to doe thy will O God thy Law is within mine heart how much rather ought this to be true of thee in any thing thou shalt doe for him Thou hast not so much to part with for him as he for thee What is thy life and wealth to the glory of his God-head which was laid aside for a while And then secondly consider how that men love lusts for lusts sake they love the world because of the world Now evill is not so much evill as good is good sin is not so much sin as God is God and Christ is Christ If therefore a profane man because of his carnall heart can love his sin though it cost him hell because of the sweetnesse in it shall not the godly heart love the things of God because of the excellency in them But these things may be more enlarged in another place LECTURE VI. ROM 2. 14 15. For when the Gentiles which know not the law do the things of the law by nature these having not the law are a law unto themselves which shew the work of the law written in their hearts BEfore I handle the other places of Scripture that are brought by the Antinomians against the Law it is my intent for better methods sake and your more sound instruction to handle the whole Theology of the Law of God in the severall distributions of it and that positively controversally and practically and I shall begin first with the law of Nature that God hath imprinted in us and consider of this two waies 1. As it is a meere law and secondly As it was a covenant of works made with Adam And then in time I shall speak of the Morall Law given Moses which is the proper subject of these controversies The Text I have read is a golden Mine and deserveth diligent digging and searching into Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us answer these Questions 1. Who are meant by the Gentiles here It is ordinarily known that the Jewes did call all those Gentiles that were not Jewes by way of contempt as the Greeks and Romans called all other nations Barbarians Hence sometimes in the Scripture the word is applyed to wicked men though Jewes as Psal 2. Why doe the heathen rage It may be interpreted of the Pharisees resisting Christ Indeed the Jewes will not confesse that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes is any where applyed to them but this is very false for Genes 17. Abraham is there said to be the father of many nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes therefore they must either deny themselves to be Abraham's seed or else acknowledge this word belonging to them But generally it signifieth those that had not the Lawes of Moses nor did live by them Therefore Gal. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live like a Gentile is not to observe the Lawes of Moses and in this sense it is to be taken here for the Apostles scope is to make good that great charge upon all mankinde both Jew and Gentile that naturally they are wholly in sin and God being no accepter of persons will destroy the one as well as the other And whereas it might be thought very hard to deale thus with the Gentile because no law was delivered unto him as unto the Jew the Apostle answereth that Objection in this place But grant it be understood of such Gentiles then there is a greater Question whether it be meant of the Gentiles abiding so or the Gentiles converted and turned beleevers for that the Apostle speaks of such most of the Latine Interpreters both ancient and modern doe affirme and so the Greek Father Chrysostome and Estius a learned Papist doe think there are so many arguments for it that it 's certaine I confesse they bring many probable reasons but I will not trouble you with them this seemeth a strong argument against them because the Apostle speaks of such who are without a law and a law to themselves which could not be true of Gentiles converted we take the Apostle therefore to speak of Gentiles abiding so but in this sense there is also a dangerous exposition and a sound one The poysonous interpretation is of the Pelagians who understand the law written in their hearts in the same sense as it is used Jerem. 33. even such a fulfilling of the law which will attaine to salvation and this they hold the Heathens by the law and help of nature did sufficiently But this is to overthrow the doctrine of Grace and Christ Therefore the sound interpretation is of the Gentiles indeed but yet to understand the law written in their hearts onely of those relicts of naturall reason and conscience which was in the Heathens as is to be proved anon The 2d. Question is easily answered How they are said to be without a law to wit without a written law as the Jewes had so that we may say they had a law without a law a law written but not declared The 3d. Question In what sense they are said to doe the things of the law and that by nature To doe the things of the law is not meant universally of all the Heathens for the Apostle shewed how most of them lived in the Chapter before nor secondly universally in regard of the matter contained in the law but some externall acts as Aristides and Socrates with others And here it 's disputed Whether a meere Heathen can doe any work morally good But wee answer No for every action ought to have a supernaturall end viz. the glory of God which they did not aime at therefore we do refuse that distinction of a morall good and theologicall because every morall good ought to be theologicall they may do that good matter of the law though not well And as for the manner how by nature those Interpreters that understand this Text of Gentiles beleevers say Nature is not here opposed to Grace but to the law written by Moses and therefore make it nature enabled by grace but this is shewed to be improbable By nature therefore we may understand that naturall light of conscience whereby they judged and performed some externall acts though these were done by the help of God The
next Question is How this Law is said to be written in their hearts You must not with Austine compare this place with that gracious promise in Jeremy of God writing his law in the hearts of his people There is therefore a two-fold writing in the hearts of men the first of knowledge and judgement whereby they apprehend what is good and bad the second is in the will and affections by giving a propenfity and delight with some measure of strength to do this upon good grounds This later is spoken of by the Prophet in the covenant of Grace and the former is to be understood here as will appeare if you compare this with Chap. 1. 19. The last Question is How they declare this Law written in their hearts And that is first externally two waies 1. By making good and wholesome lawes to govern men by and 2. By their practice at least of some of them according to those lawes And secondly internally by their consciences in the comfort or feare they had there Observat There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts And if this be not abolished but that a beleever is bound to follow the direction and obligation of it how can the Antinomian think that the Morall Law in respect of the mandatory power of it ceaseth Now because I intend a methodicall Tractate of the severall kindes of Gods Law you might expect I should say much about Lawes in generall but because many have written large Volumes especially the School-men and it cannot be denyed but that good rationall matter is delivered by them yet because it would not be so pertinent to my scope I forbeare I will not therefore examine the Etymology of the words that signifie a Law whether Lex in the Latine come of legendo because it was written to be read though that be not alwaies necessary or of ligando because a law binds to obedience or of deligendo because it selects some precepts nor concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek whether it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is improbable or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it distributes to every one that which is right neither the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some make to come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instruct and teach others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth a disposition or compiling of things together as lawes use to be In the next place I will not trouble you with the definition of a law whether it be an act or habit or the soul it selfe onely this is good to take notice of against a fundamentall errour of the Antinomian about a law in generall for they conceive it impossible but that the damning act of a law must be where the commanding act of a law is and this is frequently urged as I shewed the last time Therefore observe that there are only two things goe to the essence of a law I speak not of externall causes and that is first Direction secondly Obligation 1. Direction therefore a law is a rule hence the law of God is compared to a light And Prov. 20. 27. there is a notable expression of the law of Nature It 's a candle of the Lord searching the inwards of the belly So it is observed that the Chaldee word for a law is as much as light The second essentiall constitute of a law is Obligation for therein lyeth the essence of a sinne that it breaketh this law which supposeth the obligatory force of it In the next place there are two Consequents of the Law which are ad bene esse that the Law may be the better obeyed and this indeed turneth the law into a covenant which is another notion upon it as afterwards is to be shewn Now as for the sanction of the law by way of a promise that is a meere free thing God by reason of that dominion which he had over man might have commanded his obedience and yet never have made a promise of eternall life unto him And as for the other consequent act of the law to curse and punish this is but an accidentall act and not necessary to a law for it cometh in upon supposition of trangression and therefore as we may say of a Magistrate He was a just and compleat Magistrate for his time though he put forth no punitive justice if there be no malefactors offending so it is about a law a law is a compleat law oblieging though it do not actually curse as in the confirmed Angels it never had any more then obligatory and mandatory acts upon them for that they were under a law is plaine because otherwise they could not have sinned for where there is no law there is no transgression If therefore the Antinomian were rectified in this principle which is very true and plain he would quickly be satisfied but of this more in another place But wee come to the particulars of the doctrine the pressing of which will serve much against the Antinomian Therefore for the better understanding of this Law of Nature consider these particulars 1. The nature of it in which it doth consist and that is in those common notions and maximes which are ingraffed in all mens hearts and these are some of them speculative that there is a God and some practicall that good is to be imbraced and evill to be avoided and therefore Aquinas saith well that what principles of Sciences are in things of demonstration the same are these rules of nature in practicals therefore we cannot give any reasons of them but as the Sun manifests it selfe by its owne light so doe these Hence Chrysostome observeth well that God forbidding murder and other sins giveth no reason of it because it 's naturall but speaking of the seventh day why that in particular was to be observed he giveth a reason because on the seventh day the Lord rested not but that the seventh day is morall as some have denyed but because it 's not morall naturall onely morall positive as the Learned shew 2. The difference of its being in Adam and in us This is necessary to observe for it was perfectly implanted in Adams heart but we have onely some fragments and a meere shadow of it left in us The whole Law of Nature as it was perfectly instructing us the will of God was then communicated to him and howsoever God for good reasons hereafter to be mentioned did give besides that law of Nature a positive law to try his obedience yet the other cannot be denyed to be in him seeing he was made after Gods image in righteousnesse and holinesse and otherwise Adam had been destitute of the light of reason and without a conscience Therefore it 's a most impudent thing in Socinus to deny that Adam had any such law or precept and that hee could not lye or commit any other sin though hee would for it may not be doubted but that
if Adam had told a lye or 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
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
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
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
God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentally to concur thereunto onely this cometh by Christ The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification or adoption so that when a man doth repent turn unto God from his sins he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth but it must be in the promise of the Gospel so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lieth not in this as some do assigne that one is the instrument of grace and the other not for God useth both as I shall shew but in this that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God whether it be Law or gospel doth not justifie us but this favour is in an evangelicall manner by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us Therefore let us not confound the Law or Gospel nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects that where one is the other cannot be To these two there is also a third thing to be premised and that is how the word of God in generall is a medium or instrumentall to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that the Law of God being part of Gods word doth convert as well as the Gospel and this must needs be the opinion of all sound Divines whatsoever may fall from them at other times as appeareth by their common answer to the Papists Question If the Law and the commands thereof be impossible to what purpose then doth he command them why doth he bid us turne to him when we cannot Then we answer that these commandements are not onely informing of a duty but they are practicall and operative means appointed by God to work at least in some degree that which is commanded Hence those commands are compared by the Learned to that command of our Saviour to Lazarus that he should rise up and walk It doth also further appeare in those ends they assigne of Gods revealing the Law viz. to make us see as in a glasse our Deformity to be humbled before God to be affrighted out of our selves to seek for grace in Christ now can the meer Law of it selfe do this doth not grace work this in us by the preaching of the Law and is not this the initiall grace of conversion as Austin said Tract 12. in Johan cumcaeperit tibi displicere quod fecisti inde incipiunt bona opera tua quia accusas mala operatua Initium operum bonorum est confessio malorum The beginning of good in us is the accusation of that which is bad Therefore for the clearing of this generall take notice 1. That the word of God as it is read or preached worketh no further then objectively to the conversion of a man if considered in it self Take it I say in it self not animated by the Spirit of God and the utmost effect it can reach unto is to work onely as an object upon the Understanding And in this sense it is that the Scripture is compared to a light Now we know the Sun giveth light by way of an object it doth not give a seeing eye to a blind man It is a noble Queston in Divinity Seeing regeneration is attributed both to the word and to Baptisme how one worketh it differently from the other Or If both work it why is not one superfluous Now concerning the word preached we may more easily answer then about the Sacraments viz. that it works by way of an object upon the soul of a man and were it not set home by the Spirit of God this is the furthest worke it could obtaine And this doth plainly appeare in that the word of God doth only convert those who are able to heare and understand And the word of God being thus of it selfe onely a directive and informative rule hence it 's compared to the Pilots Compasse to Theseus his thred leading us in the Circean gardens of this world and therefore take away the Spirit of God and we may say the whole Scripture is a letter killing yea that which we call the Gospel Preach the promises of the Gospel a thousand times over they convey no grace if the spirit of God be not there effectually Indeed if the communicating of grace were inseparably annexed to the preaching of the Gospel then that were of some consequence which is objected by the Antinomian But sad experience sheweth that notwithstanding the large promises of grace to overflow like a fountain whereas in the Old Testament it was by drops only yet the greater part to whom the grace of God is offered are not converted Therefore in the next place consider this Whatsoever good effects or benefit is conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the Law or the Gospel it 's efficiently from Gods Spirit so that we must not take the Law without the Spirit of God and then compare it with the Gospel having the Spirit of God for that is unequall And by the same reason I may preferre the Law sometimes before the Gospel for I may suppose a Minister opening the duties of the Law as Christ doth here in this Chapter and the Spirit of God accompanying this to change the heart of a man and on the otherside one preaching the Gospel in the greatest glory of it yet not accompanyed with Gods Spirit there may not be the least degree of grace wrought in any hearer Therefore I cannot well understand that the Law indeed that sheweth us our duty but the Gospel that giveth us grace to do it for if you take the Gospel for the Promises preached how many are there that heare these that yet receive no benefit by them and on the other side if the Law setting forth our duty be accompanyed with Gods Spirit that may instrumentally work in us an ability to our duty and without the Spirit the Gospel cannot do it It is true if this were the meaning that had there been only Law there could never have been any grace vouchsafed but it is by reason of Christ and so the Promises of the Gospel that any good is brought to the soules and so the Law worketh as a medium to our Conversion by Christ If I say this be the meaning then it 's true but the obscure and unclear expressing of this giveth an occasion to the Antinomian errour Now that the Scripture as it is written or preached without the Spirit of God cannot convert us is plain partly because then the devils and great men of parts which do understand the letter of the Scripture better then others would be sooner converted partly because the Scripture so far as it 's a word read or preached cannot reach to the heart to alter and change that Hence the Word of God though it be compared to a sword yet
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
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
It 's good instrumentally as used by Gods Spirit for good It 's disputed by some Whether the Law and the preaching of it is used as an instrument by the Spirit of God for conversion But that will be an entire Question in it self only thus much at this time The Spirit of God doth use the Law to quicken up the heart of a beleever unto his duty Psal 119. Thou hast quickened me by thy precepts And so Psal 19. The Law of the Lord enlightneth the simple and by them thy servant is fore-warn'd of sinne You will say The word Law is taken largely there for all precepts and testimonies It 's true but it 's not exclusive of the precepts of the morall Law for they were the chiefest and indeed the whole Word of God is an organ and instrument of Gods Spirit for instruction reformation and to make a man perfect to every good work It 's an unreasonable thing to separate the Law from the Spirit of God and then compare it with the Gospel for if you doe take the Gospel even that Promise Christ came to save sinners without the Spirit it worketh no more yea it 's a dead letter as well as the Law Therefore Calvin well called Lex corpus and the Spirit anima now accedat anima ad corpus Let the soul be put into the body and it 's a living reasonable man But now as when we say A man discourses A man understands this is ratione animae in respect of his soul not corporis of the body so when we say A man is quickened by the Law of God to obedience this is not by reason of the Law but of the Spirit of God But of this anon 4. It 's good in respect of the sanction of it for it 's accompanied with Promises and that not only temporall as Command 5. but also spirituall Command 2. where God is said to pardon to many generations and therefore the Law doth include Christ secondarily and occasionally though not primarily as hereafter shall be shewed It 's true the righteousnesse of the Law and that of the Gospel differ toto coelo we must place one in suprema parte coeli and the other in ima parte terrae as Luther speakes to that effect and it 's one of the hardest taskes in all divinity to give them their bounds and then to cleare how the Apostle doth oppose them and how not We know it was the cursed errour of the Manichees and Marcionites that the Law was only carnall and had only carnall promises whereas it 's evident that the Fathers had the same faith for substance as we have It 's true if we take Law and Gospel in this strict difference as some Divines doe that all the Precepts wheresoever they are must be under the Law and all the Promises be reduced to the Gospel whether in Old or New Testament in which sense Divines then say Lex jubet Gratia juvat the Law commands and Grace helps and Lex imperat the Law commands and Fides impetrat Faith obtaineth then the Law can have no sanction by Promise But where can this be shewed in Scripture When we speake of the sanction of the Law by Promise we take it as in the administration of it by Moses which was Evangelicall not as it was given to Adam with a Promise of Eternall life upon perfect obedience for the Apostle Paul's propositions To him that worketh the reward is reckoned of debt and the doers of the Law are justified were never verificable but in the state of innocency 5. In respect of the acts of it You may call them either acts or ends I shall acts And thus a law hath divers acts 1. Declarative to lay down what is the will of God 2. To command obedience to this will declared 3. Either to invite by Promises or compell by threatnings 4. To condemne the transgressors and this use the Law is acknowledged by all to have against ungodly and wicked men and some of these cannot be denyed even to the godly I wonder much at an Antinomian authour that saith It cannot be a law unlesse it also be a cursing law for besides that the same authour doth acknowledge the morall Law to be a rule to the beleever and regula hath vim praecepti as well as doctrinae what will he say to the Law given to Adam who as yet was righteous and innocent and therefore could not be cursing or condemning of him so the Angels were under a law else they could not have finned yet it was not a cursing law It 's true if we take cursing or condemning potentially so a law is alwayes condemning but for actuall cursing that is not necessary no not to a transgressour of the Law that hath a surety in his roome 6. In respect of the end of it Rom. 16. 4. Christ is the end of the Law By reason of the different use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are different conjectures some make it no more then extremitas or terminus because the ceremoniall Law ended in Christ Others make it finis complementi the fulness of the Law is Christ Others adde finis intentionis or scopi to it so that by these the meaning is The Law did intend Christ in all its ceremonialls and moralls that as there was not the least ceremony which did not lead to Christ so not the least iota or apex in the morall Law but it did also aime at him Therefore saith Calvin upon this place Habemus insignem locum quòd Lex omnibus suis partibus in Christum respiciat Imò quicquid Lex docet quicquid praecipit quicquid promittit Christum pro scopo habet We have a noble place proving that the Law in all its parts did look to Christ yea whatsoever the Law teacheth commandeth or promiseth it hath Christ for its scope What had it been for a Jew to pray to God if Christ had not been in that prayer to love God if Christ had not been in that love yet here is as great a difference between the Law and Gospel as is between direction and exhibition between a school-master and a father he is an unwise childe that will make a school-master his father Whether this be a proper intention of the Law you shall have hereafter 7. In respect of the adjuncts of it which the Scripture attributeth to it And it 's observable that even where the Apostle doth most urge against the Law as if it were so farre from bettering men that it makes them the worse yet there he praiseth it calling it good and spirituall Now I see it called spirituall in a two-fold sense 1. Effectivè because it did by Gods Spirit quicken to spirituall life even as the Apostle in the opposition calls himself carnall because the power of corruption within did work carnall and sinfull motions in him But I shall expound it spirituall 2. Formaliter formally because
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
must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God All the unregenerate mans actions his prayers and services are sinnes 3. It must flow from an inward principle of grace or a supernaturall being in the soule whereby a man is a new creature 4. The end must be Gods glory That which the most refined man can doe is but a glow-worm not a starre So that then onely is the work good when being answerable to the rule it 's from God and through God and to God 2. That the Antinomian erreth two contrary wayes about good works Sometimes they speak very erroneously and grosly about them Thus Islebius Agricola the first Antinomian that was who afterwards joyned with others in making that wicked Book called The Interim and his followers deliver these Positions That saying of Peter Make your calling and election sure is dictum inutile an unprofitable saying and Peter did not understand Christian liberty So again As soon as thou once beginnest to thinke how men should live godlily and modestly presently thou hast wandered from the Gospel And again The Law and works only belong to the Court of Rome Then on the other side they lift them up so high that by reason of Christs righteousnesse imputed to us they hold all our workes perfect and so apply that place Ephes 1. Christs clensing his Church so as to be without spot or wrinkle even pure in this life They tell us not onely of a righteousnesse or justification by imputation but also Saintship and holinesse by this obedience of Christ And hence it is that God seeth no sin in beleevers This is a dangerous position and although they have Similies to illustrate and distinctions to qualifie it yet when I speak of imputed righteousnesse there will be the proper place to shew the dangerous falshood of them 3. You must in the discourse you shall heare concerning the necessity of good works carefully distinguish between these two Propositions Good workes are necessary to beleevers to justified persons or to those that shall be saved and this Good works are necessary to justification and salvation Howsoever this later is true in some sense yet because the words carry as if holinesse had some effect immediately upon our justification and salvation therefore I do wholly assent to those learned men that think in these two cases we should not use such a Proposition 1. When we deale with adversaries especially Papists in disputation for then we ought to speak exactly Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary lest they should seem to yeeld to Nestorius who denyed her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people for what common hearer is there that upon such a speech doth not conceive that they are so necessary as that they immediately work our justification The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified the other as conditions effecting justification 4. These good works ought to be done or are necessary upon these grounds 1. They are the fruit and end of Christs death Titus 2. 14. It 's a full place The Apostle there sheweth that the whole fruit and benefit of Christs redemption is lost by those that live not holily There are two things in our sins 1. The guilt and that Christ doth redeem us from 2. The filth and that he doth purifie from If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts hee will purifie thee from the noisomenesse of them And mark a two-fold end of this purification that we may be a peculiar people This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome saith he sought for among humane authours and could not finde it therefore some think the Seventy feigned this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It answers to the Hebrew word Segullah and signifieth that which is precious and excellent got also with much labour so that this holinesse this repentance of thine it cost Christ deare And the other effect is zealous of good workes The Greek Fathers observe the Apostle doth not say followers but zealous that doth imply great alacrity and affection And lest men should think we should onely preach of Christ and grace These things speak saith he and exhort And Calvin thinketh the last words Let no man despise thee spoken to the people because they are for the most part of delicate eares and cannot abide plaine words of mortification 2. There is some kind of Analogicall relation between them and heaven comparatively with evill works So those places where it 's said If wee confesse our sins he is not onely faithfull but also just to forgive us our iniquities So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crowne of righteousnesse which the righteous Judge c. These words doe not imply any condignity or efficiency in the good things wee doe but an ordinability of them to eternall life so that evill and wicked workes they cannot be ordained to everlasting life but these may Hence some Divines say That though godlinesse be not meritorious nor causall of salvation yet it may be a motive as they instance If a King should give great preferment to one that should salute him in a morning this salutation were neither meritorious nor causall of that preferment but a meer motive arising from the good pleasure of the King And thus much they think that particle for I was an hungry doth imply So that God having appointed holinesse the way and salvation the end hence there ariseth a relation between one and the other 3. There is a promise made to them 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godlinesse hath the promises as it is in the Originall because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God so that to every godly action thou doest there is a promise of eternall life And hereby though God be not a debtor to thee yet he is to himselfe and to his owne faithfulnesse Reddis debita nulli debens cryed Austine so that the godly may say Oh Lord it was free for thee before thou hadst promised whether thou wouldst give me heaven or no but now the word is out of thy mouth not but that we deserve the contrary onely the Lord is faithfull therefore saith David I will mention thy righteousnesse i. e. faithfulnesse onely and the Apostle This is a faithfull saying and worthy of all acceptation This made them labour and suffer shame If you aske How then is not the Gospel a Covenant of workes That in brief shall be answered afterwards 4. They are Testimonies whereby our election is made sure 2 Pet. 1. ver 10. Make your calling and election sure The Vulgar Translator interposeth those words per bona opera and complaineth of Luther as putting this out of the Text because it made against him but it 's no part of Scripture Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very
Aristotle sheweth in many reasons against Plato What would have been in innocency if Adam had stood whether a common right to all things or a divided propriety I speak of goods is hard to say But as for the practice of the Church of Jerusalem that was occasionall and necessary therefore not to be a ground for perpetuall command for other Churches did it not as appeareth by the almes that were gathered nor was it laid necessarily upon all to sell what they had as appeareth by Paul's speech to Ananias Use 1. If God be so angry with those that abuse naturall light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospel light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifugae as Bats and Owles are In one Chapter God is said three times to deliver them up because they did not glorifie God according to Natures light how much more then according to the Gospels light Gravis est lux conscientiae said Seneca but gravior est lux Evangelii The light of the Ministery and Word must needs be more troublesome to thy sinfull wayes Use 2. Of Examination whether even among Christians may not be found men no better then Heathens Now such are 1. Ignorant people how few have any knowledge of God 2. Violent adherers to former Idololatricall courses taken up by fore-fathers There is this difference between an Idolater and a true Beleever The Beleever is like those creatures that you can make nothing lye on their backs unlesse it be fastened by some Scripture or reason but the Heathen is like the Camell that had a back for burdens on purpose so that any idolatry he would bear though it were not tyed on by arguments 3. Such as are inordinately distracted about the things of this world Matth. 6. After these things doe the Heathens seek Hast thou not much of an Heathen in thee 4. Such as rage at Christ and his reformation Psal 2. Why doe the Heathens rage LECTURE IX ROM 2. 14. For the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the law WE have handled those things that concern the light and conduct of Nature now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature for herein are two extreme errours one of the Pelagian Papist and Arminian with others who lift up this power too high The enemies of grace lurk under the praises of nature Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory works upon the heart of a man holding that Christ immediately communicateth himselfe to grosse sinners abiding so and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ which all orthodox do yet they expresse it in an unsound sense comparing God unto a Physician that doth violently open the sick mans throat and poure down his physick whether he will or no whereas God though he doth convert fortiter yet he doth it also suaviter Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing we will lay down these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is not indeed a Scripture name but meerly ecclesiasticall and hath been so abused that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded but if we speak of the quid sit and not the quid possit the being of it and not the working of it we must necessarily acknowledge it The neerest expression to the word Free-will is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over his own will but generally the Scripture useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as we intend There is in all men naturally that power whereby through the help of Reason he chooseth this and refuseth another-thing only this must not be extended to the things of grace Now to say what this Free-will is is very hard Perkins following some Schoole-men maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will others a third reall distinct power from them but it may probably be thought that it is nothing but the will in electing or refusing such things so that we call it the Will in those things it 's necessarily carried out to as to will what is good and not sin as sin and then Free-will when it 's carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it Even as in the Understanding while the Understanding doth consider first Principles it 's called Intellectus while Conclusions that are gathered from them it 's called Ratio Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us when they say we turn men into beasts for we hold the Understanding going before and the Will after and this is more then a meere spontaneous inclination in things naturall Therefore it is that we do not bid the fire burn or perswade an horse to goe because there is not Understanding or Will in these things as there is in a man 2. This which is left in us is not able to performe naturall actions without the generall help of God That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally must still be limited to his proper sphere to naturall and civill actions or some externally religious duties but even then we must acknowledge a generall help or assistance of God without which we could not doe any naturall thing so that place in the Acts In him we live and move and have our being by which we prove that God doth not onely give us the principles of being and moving but we move in him i. e. by him Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians that thought without the generall aide of God a man might move his finger or write and speak There have beem some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power o◠actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then mee◠preservation of our being no concourse or aide of God helping us in the action Thus Durand of old and one Dodo of late who hath written a Book onely to that purpose but the place abovesaid doth evidently convince it and we see that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning which could not be otherwise then by denying his actuall aide to the working of the fire For to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies were to make the miracle there where the Scripture doth not lay it If you aske then why this may not be called a speciall help of God as well as that whereby we are inabled to beleeve or repent I answer there is a great deal of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in regard of their positive nature as well
the making up of that covenant I shall handle both those distinctly and first let us consider Gods positive law in the text which is also called by Divines a symbolicall precept because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature but indifferent and only evil because prohibited So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two wayes first by that which is proper to it the tree of knowledge of good and evil secondly by that which is accidentall to it viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it And that this commandement might be the better received in the Verse before God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this When God made this world as a great house he puts man into it as his tenant and by this tryall of obedience he must acknowledge his Land-lord That Adam did eate in the state of innocency and was hungry doth appeare by this text onely hunger was not in him as it is in us with paine and trouble The difficulties must be handled in the opening of the doctrine which is That God besides the naturall law engraven in Adams heart did give a positive law to try his obedience The doubts in explicating of this point are 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill And here certainly wee must take heed of being too curious lest as it was Adams sin to eate of it so it may be our curiosity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it Now when I aske what is meant by it I doe not understand what kind of fruit or tree it was whether apple or fig that cannot be determined but why it had that name The Rabbins who have as many foolish dreames about the Old Testament as the Friars about the New conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the use of reason and that this tree was to accelerate it And indeed the Socinians border upon this opinion for they say Adam and Eve were created very simple and weak in understanding and say they it 's impossible to conceive that if Adams soule were created so adorned with all knowledge and graces as the firmament is bespangled with stars how he should come to eate of the forbidden fruit or to sin against God But both these are false That he had perfect knowledge appeareth in his giving names to the creatures and to Eve so fitting and apt and Eph. 3. the image of God is said to have a renewed mind and that though thus knowing he did yet sin and though thus holy hee did yet fall it was because hee was not perfectly confirmed but mutable Indeed Divines doe much labour to expresse how his sin did begin whether in the Will first or in the Understanding but that is impertinent to this matter That which is the most received both by Austin and others is that it was so called not from any effect but from the event because it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill and so it 's usuall in Scripture to call that by a name which it had afterward Now though this be generally received and cannot well be rejected yet certainly it may be further said that it was not called so by the meere event but by the divine decree and appointment of God as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam that hee should not desire to know more or otherwise then God had appointed 2. Why God would give a positive law besides that of the naturall law in his heart There are these reasons commonly given 1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged for to obey the naturall law might be a necessary condition and not an act of the Will Even as the Heathens doe abstaine from many sins not because forbidden by God but as dissonant to their naturall reason And even among Christians there is a great deale of difference between good actions that are done because God commands and because of a naturall conscience These two principles make the same actions to differ in their whole nature Therefore God would try Adam by some positive law that so the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth and therefore Adam in this was not to consider the greatnesse or goodnesse of the matter but the will of the commander 2. Another reason which floweth from the former is that so Adams obedience might be the more tryed and be manifested to be obedience For as Austine speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austine doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbelief were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides
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
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
it was said of old c. BEcause my purpose is to set forth the dignity of the Morall Law I shall therefore briefly demonstrate in this present Sermon the falshood of that opinion maintained by Papists Anabaptists and Socinians That Christ came to give us more exact precepts then Moses delivered to the Jewes and therefore that Christ was not here an Interpreter but a Reformer It cannot be denyed but this Sermon of our Saviours hath bred many thoughts of heart for because of these precepts here not rightly understood the Heathens took occasion to calumniate the Christian Religion as that which could not stand with a Common-wealth And the Ancient Fathers were much troubled in answer to their objections for when Julian and others did urge that seeing by Christs commands we might not resist evill but rather be prepared to receive more injuries therefore no Warre no Magistracy no places of Judicature were lawfull the Fathers in their answer did seeme to yeeld this only they said Here was a lawfull way and a better way To warre or to take places of Justice were lawfull wayes but yet to refuse these and not to medle with them at all was a more sublime Christian way And from this mistake came that erroneous opinion of Precepts and Councels Besides it 's thought by the Learned that some of the Ancient Fathers being Philosophers before did retaine much of that stoicall disposition in them and so made Christs Precepts comply with their affections But this I shall endeavour to prove that there is no lawfull Morall way heretofore commanded by Moses to the Jewes which doth not at this time also belong to Christians Only let me premise thus much That howsoever the things questioned by the Adversaries are lawfull to Christians yet there are few that rise up to the practise of them as Christ commanded Certainly these places Of not resisting evill Of giving our cloak to him that would take away our coat c. though they do not exclude the office of a Magistrate or our desire of him to aide us in our defence yet they do forbid the frequent and common practise of most Christians so that we may say there are few states and Kingdomes which do rise up to the practise of that patience and christian meeknesse which we see here commanded inso much that kingdomes are more the kingdomes of the world then of Christ and the lawes and practises of Common-wealths are such as sute more with humane states then with the lawes of Christ But I come to the particulars And first whereas it 's granted to be lawfull by the Law of Moses to swear now say some under the Gospel it 's made absolutely unlawfull under any pretence whatsoever and say they here our Saviour forbids it absolutely Swear not at all and James following this of our Saviour doth the like Hence their opinion is that it is not only unlawfull to swear falsely and vainly but at all in any respect And this say they is a perfection required of Christians above those of the Law Nor is it any wonder that men of late have doubted of this seeing the Learned shew that some of the Fathers of old have thought it absolutely unlawfull for a Christian to swear In Eusebius one Basilides a Christian being commanded to swear replied It was not lawfull for him because he was a Christian And Hierome saith that to swear was permitted to the Jews or infants as to offer sacrifices unto God yet I cannot see but that they did swear also although sometimes they speak as if they thought there were an absolute prohibition of it Yet Athanasius made a solemn oath to purge himself when accused to the Emperour and Tertullian saith though the Christians refused to swear per genium Principis because that they conceived it a devill yet they did swear per salutem principis Some again have thought that it is lawfull to swear but then only in religious things or in things that do concerh the safety of the Publique but that it is not lawfull to swear in any thing of our own or about any money matter and Basil doth object to the Christians of his time the Example of one Clinius a Pythagorean who being fined a great summe of money and might have escaped it by an oath yet chose rather to undergoe that dammage then to swear Some have thought it better if in humane affairs where promissory oaths use to be there were only a naked promise yet with as great a punishment upon the breaking of it as if it were perjury because men are for the most part more awed with fear of punishment then breaking an oath But whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about limiting of swearing yet it is lawfull in some cases to swear neither is our Saviour so to be understood as universally forbidding First because then he would have destroyed the Law which yet he denyeth that he doth for Deut. 6. to swear by God is a command not indeed of a thing absolutely in it self but occasionally as opportunity shall be Therefore the word that signifieth To sweare in the Heb. is in the passive sense implying that we are not voluntarily to choose to do so but when necessity requireth it Secondly again Christ doth not absolutely prohibit it because the use and end of an oath is perpetuall which is to end controversies Heb. 6. Therefore Aquinas saith well that what first principles are in speculatives to determine all conclusions the same an oath is in practicalls to end controversies Thirdly and lastly we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle so that our Saviour doth not altogether forbid it but he reproveth the Pharisees corrupt glosses which were 1. To think that if a man did not name God in his oath though it were by other creatures it was not perjury if he did falsifie that oath And how many come neer this who think if they sweare by the creatures so that God is not named it 's not such an hainous thing The second corrupt interpretation was They thought that Gods Name was not polluted if so be they intended to make good their promise though they did use the Name of God in their oathes about unnecessary and vain matters Now this our Saviour forbids by his affirmative Direction Let your yea be yea and nay nay what soever is more then this is of sinne He speakes there of our ordinary familiar discourse as private persons not concerning a publike consideration even as afterwards when he mentioneth the duty of not resisting evil he forbids private revenge and not publique justice Although some understand this of our Saviours and that of James not of assertory oathes for it 's spoken by our Saviour in addition unto that Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vows but of promissory oaths and so the meaning is Although thou intend to performe or do such a thing yet doe not sweare because things are
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
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
Gospel that all sins are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meer declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Iustification The forenamed Author hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTVRE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith WE have confuted the false differences and now come to lay down the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into it's opposite Species but of the subject according to it 's severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they do expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of works and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Iews that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Iews did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacramenrs but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jews and Gentiles did eye and look to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1. Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees of perspicuity and clearness in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summ of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda things to be beleeved speranda things to be hoped for facienda things to be done Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a vail upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ only to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called Ecclesia but never Synagoge the meeting of the Jews called always Synagoge but never Ecclesia doth suppose that the Jews were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called Synagoge although Cameron Praelect de Eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstain from the word Synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporal and carnal yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins observation shewing that the Jews should first be allured by temporal mercies and afterwards the Christians by spiritual As saith he first that which is animal and then that which is spiritual The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus we may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animal was first and then that which is spiritual Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet we see David making God his portion and professing that he hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meer outward mercies These good things promised to the Jews were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soul and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernel and the shell but the Jews for the most part looked only to the outward Hence Christ when he opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernel to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in moral things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and clear as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which he brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Law and the Prophets which he must have said if
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
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
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
righteous then Adam What God requireth of us is not greater then what he demanded of Adam in innocency Adams immortality in the state of innocency different from and short of that which shall be in heaven 1. What meant by words 2. Nothing to be added or taken from them 3. God the Author of this Law 4. The manner of delivering it Doctr. The word Law is capable of diverse senses and significations Of the division of Laws in general and why the Morall so called The Law of Moses differs from the law of Nature 1. In respect of power of binding 2. The breach of the Law given by Moses is a greater sin then the breach of the law of Nature 3. The Morall Law requires justifying faith and repentance and contains more particulars in it then the law of Nature The Law was given when the Israelites were in the wilderness and not sooner 1. Because being come out of Aegypt they were to be restrained of their impiety and idolatry 2. Because they were now to grow into a Common-wealth The Law not only was but was publikely preached in the Church before Moses The ends of the promulgation of the Law were 1. That the Israelites might see what holiness was required of them 2. That they might come to knâ—w sin and be humbled 3. To shadow out unto them the excellent and holy nature of God The delivering of this Law to the Israelites 〈…〉 at mâ—â—â—â— unto them The Law of Moses is a perfect rule 1. The Law was given with great majesty thereby to procure the greater authority to it There is a difference between the Morall Iudiciall and Ceremoniall Law notwithstanding they were given at the same time The Morall Law more excellent then the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall in three respects God humbled the Israelites before he gave them his Law God setled his worship before he gave them Canaan Preparation required before the hearing of the Law 1. The people must sanctifie themselves 2. They must not touch the Mount 3. Nor come at their wives 2. The Law was given with great Majesty that so the people might be raised up to reverence the Law-giver 3. The Law was written by God in Tables of stone to denote the dignity and perpetuity of it What meant by the finger of God a Iob 19. 24. 4 The Israelites notwithstanding the delivery of this Law was with power and Maiesty quickly broke it 5. Moses his abode in the Mount procured authority both to himself and the Law 6. Moses his breaking of the Tables intimates that justification is not to be had by them Moses his zeal in breaking the Tables vindicated from rashnesse and sinful perturbation of minde 7. Gods manifestation of his glory unto Moses makes for his honour 8. Though the writing of the second Tables was Gods work yet the forming and polishing them was the work of Moses 9. The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses argues the administration of the Law to be glorious 10. The preservation of the Law in the Ark makes much for the glory of it Seeing God hath put such marks of glory upon the Law let us take heed of disparaging it The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodox though the Law as given by Moses did not binde Christians The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the New Testament is binding Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the Observation thereof was intended for the Church of God perpetually The Morall Law is binding 1. In Regard of the matter of it 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. Arguments of the Antinomians whereby they would prove that the Law as given by Moses does not bind Christians examined answered Argum. 1. Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Argum. 2. Answ Though the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it yet in the obliging power of it it does Take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses a What is mean by It hath been said by them of old b VVho meant by those of old Those precepts said to be of old are the Law and words Moses Christ does only interpret the old adds no new laws The Pharisees were of opinion that the law did only reach the outward man and forbid out ward acts Doctr. No specificall difference of the duties in the Old Testament from those of the New but only graduall in their manifestation The Law did not only command the outward duty but required the worship of the heart 2. The Law preferred inward graces before outward duties All the duties required by the Law were to be done 1. In Faith 2. In love Love to God in as great a measure commanded by the Law as by the Gospel In all our addresses to God it required spirituall motives It required joy in God above all things else It required perfection of the subject object degrees c. The Law instrumentall to work grace in us as well as the Gospel It is the duty of Ministers to be diligent in preaching and expounding the Law Swearing neither absolutely unlawfull not universally forbidden by our Saviour with reasons why Corrupt glosses of the Pharisees touching Swaring reproved In what sense the words An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth are to be taken Capitall punishments even death it selfe may be inflicted upon Ofsenders 1. Because commanded by God * Grotius 2. Because it is the Magistrates office 3. Because practis'd under the Gospel upon Ananias and Sapphira and so not repugnant to it Object 1. Sol. Object 2. Sol. Object 3. Sol. Warre allowed by Christ under the Gospel Two causes for which the Primitive Christians might decline warre All men naturally prone ta revenge injuries The primitive Christians held it unlawfull for a man in his own defence to kill the invader Revenge as strictly forbidden in the Old Test as in the New Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour The preach ing of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally works the conversion of men The Law without Christ cannot work to regeneration The Law may be blessed to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion The word read or preached concurres obejctively onely to mans conversion All the benefits conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the word are efficiently from Gods Spirit The VVord without the Spirit cannot convert us and why Six Arguments to prove the Law and the preaching of it means of Conversion 1. 2. 3. Use Pray for the benefit of the
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
his opinion were true but of the Scribes and Pharisees who had corrupted the text with their false glosses I will not consider his other reasons for they are so weak that he seemeth to be afraid of them And certainly it would be strange Divinity to say that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart and not have sinned but now it would be sin in a Christian The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace Hence the Scripture speakes as if they had under the Old Testament none at all meerly because there was not such a plentifull effusion of his Spirit upon them not but that if we consider some particular persons they might have such degrees of grace that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them as Abraham and David but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then So that as one starre differeth from another in glory thus did the Church of the Jewes from that of Christians They had drops but we have the fountaine they had glimmerings but we have the sun it selfe Now as these are priviledges so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge and holiness then was in those dayes But all that the Prophets reproved in their people ignorance selfe confidence resting upon externall duties c. the same may we in our hearers 3. Their condition was more servile All things did press more to fear and bondage then now among us Hence the Apostle Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bond-woman Hence Austine makes Timor and Amor the difference of the two Testaments God met man sinning in the Law as he did Adam with terrour charging sin upon him but under the Gospel as the father did the prodigall son coming home to him See Heb. 12. this difference considered by Paul Yee are not come to Mount Sinai c. Only you must rightly understand this The Jewes had a two fold consideration one as being servile and another of them as sonnes but under age so that they were not wholly excluded from the Spirit of Adoption yea the Apostle saith That the Promises and Adoption did belong unto thom and David doth appropriate God unto himselfe as his God in his prayer which argued he had the Spirit of Adoption inabling him to call Abba Father Now as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage so they were under an outward bondage also opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speakes of whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them In the asserting of this difference one scruple is to be removed which is this How could the Jewes be said to be in more servitude then the Christians meerly because of those ceremonies and sacrifices for seeing they were commanded by God and had spirituall significations they did thereby become helpes unto their faith and were exercises of their piety As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden and tend to bondage because they are visible signes But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us for as Chrysostome observeth if wee had been incorporeall God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments no more then he doth to Angels but now consisting of soul and body he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to helpe us and to promote our faith But this may be answered that although they were spirituall in signification yet they being many and requiring much bodily labour they could not be observed without much difficulty and therefore no priest or Levite that was spiritually minded in those dayes but would rather choose to exercise the ministery under the Gospel then to busie himself in the killing of beasts and fleaing of them which was their duty to do Therefore well did Austine observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments fewer in number easier in observation and more cleare in signification Again those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children and were more convenient to that low condition then unto the full age of the Church and Sacraments though they be an help yet they suppose some imbecillity in the subject therefore in heaven there shall be none at all Only take notice that Popery having introduced so many ceremonious observations and such a multitude of Church-precepts hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of none-age again This also discovereth that such are not spirituall that delight in ceremoniall wayes and the more men fix their heart upon sensible observations the less they partake of spirituall I will instance but in a fourth because these differences are given by most that treate on this subject and that shall be the continuance and abode of it The Law in that Mosaicall administration was to indure but till Christ the fulness came and then as the scaffolds are pulled down when the house is built so were all those externall ordinances to be abolished when Christ himselfe came A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth A School-master is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge Milke is not comely for those who live on solid meat The chaff preserves the corn but when the corn is gathered the chaff is thrown away And when the fruit commeth the flower falleth to the ground And in this sense the Apostle Heb. 7. doth argue against it saying it could bring nothing to perfection Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited which would work all those spirituall mercies for us Hence had there been no farther proceeding but we must alwaies have stayed in such offerings and sacrifices it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us It is therefore in this respect that it was to be antiquated and a better covenant to come in the room of it The Apostle calleth those things Heb. 10. a shadow Now a shadow that doth shew a man but yet the shadow that doth not live or eate or speak so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ but yet they could not exhibite the reall benefits by Christ As Elisha sent his servant with a staff to raise up the Shunamites son but he could doe nothing then cometh the Prophet himself and raiseth him up so it 's here Moses was like the Prophets servant he went with a staff to raise up those dead in sin but could not do it without Christ Here may be one Question made upon these things and that is Why God appointed such various and different administrations This providence of God became a rock to the Marcionites and Manichees insomuch that they denyed the same God to be Author of both the Testaments To answer this certainly God if he pleased could have as clearly revealed Christ