strict rule of things to be done by way of command but denoteth any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept 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 onely 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 acceptions of the word Law in Scripture are divers the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law You 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 onely Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law onely 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 Christ Jesus 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 onely 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 bookes 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 Denteronomy 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 This is 2. The Law and the Spirit of God must not be separated a principle alwaies 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 owne 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 doe well confute 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 turne 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 3. Obedience and love oppose not one another and delight doe not oppose one another About this I see a perpetuall mistake To lead a man by the Law is slavish it 's servile say they a Beleever is carried by love he needs no law and I shall shew you Chrysostome hath some such hyperbolicall expressions upon the words following The Law is not put for the righteous But this is very weak to oppose the efficient cause and the rule together for the Spirit of God worketh the heart to love and delight in that which he commandeth Take an instance in Adam While he stood he did obey out of love and yet because of the command also We may illustrate it by Moses his mother You know she was hired and commanded by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse Moses which was her own childe now she did this out of love to Moses her childe yet did obey Pharaoh's daughters commandement upon her also so concerning Christ there was a commandement laid upon Christ to fulfill the Law for us yet he did it out of love It is disputed Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever the Arrians from the grant of this did inferre Christs absolute inferiority to the Father yet our orthodox Divines doe conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it Acts 7. 37. John 14. 31. As my
a great part of it they make it commonitory and not obligatory and the power of man they make to be the rule of his duty whereas it is plaine by Scripture that that measure of grace which God giveth any man upon earth is not answerable to the duty commanded there It is true Hierome said It was blasphemy to say God commanded any thing impossible but in this sense impossible absolutely so that man could never have fulfilled it 5. When they doe oppose it to Christ. And this was the Jewes 5. When they oppose it to Christ fundamentall errour and under this notion doth the Apostle argue against it in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians And howsoever they would have compounded Christ and the Law together yet this composition was to make opposition There can be no more two Suns in the firmament then two things to justifie Therefore the reconciliation of the Law and Christ cannot be in matter of justification by way of mixture but yet one is antecedaneous and subordinate to the other and is no more to be opposed then the end to the meanes Nor is it any wonder that the Law through errour may be opposed to Christ seeing that Christ may be opposed to Christ as in Popery Christ sanctifying is opposed to Christ justifying for when we charge them with derogating from Christ in holding our graces doe justifie Nay say they we set him up more then you for we hold He doth make us holy That this holinesse doth justifie Thus you see Christ in his works is opposed to Christ in his justifying And here by the way you may see that that onely is the best way of advancing Christ or grace which is in a Scripture way and not what is possible for us to think as the Papists doe 6. When they look for justification by it and this is a dangerous 6. When they expect justification by it and desperate errour this is that which reigneth in Popery this is that inbred canker-worme that eateth in the hearts of all naturally They know not a Gospel-righteousnesse and for this end they reade the Law they heare it preached onely that they may be selfe-saviours And certainly for this two-fold end I may think God suffers this Antinomian errour to grow first That Ministers may humble themselves they have not set forth Christ and grace in all the glory of it If Bernard said he did not love to reade Tully because he could not reade the Name of Christ there how much rather may we say that in many Sermons in many a mans ministery the drift and end of all his preaching is not that Christ may be advanced And in Christians in Protestants it is a farre greater sin then in Papists for it is well observed by Peter Martyr that the Apostle doth deale more mildly in the Epistle to the Romans then in the Epistle to the Galatians and the reason is because the Galatians were at first well instructed in the matter of justification but afterwards did mixe other things with Christ therefore he thunders against them I desire to know nothing saith Paul 1 Corinth 2. but Jesus Christ and him crucified And secondly another end may be to have these truths beaten out more As The deity of Christ because of the Arrians and Grace in predestination and conversion by the Pelagians so The grace of justification because not onely of Papists but Antinomians And certainly these things were much pressed by Luther at first as appeares in his Epistle to the Galatians but perceiving how this good doctrine was abused he speaks in his Commentary on Genesis which was one of his last workes much against Antinomists But yet because generally people are fallen into a formality of truthes it 's good to set up Christ And the poyson of this opinion will be seen in these things 1. It overthroweth the nature of grace And this holdeth against 1. Justification by the Law overthrowes the nature of grace the workes of the Gospel as well as those of the Law Take notice of this that justification by workes doth not onely exclude the workes of the Law but all workes of the Gospel yea and the workes of grace also Hence you see the opposition is of works and of grace Here the Apostle makes an immediate opposition whereas the Papist would say Paul hath a non sequitur for datur tertium workes of and by grace But workes doe therefore oppose grace because the frequent acception of it in the Scripture is for the favour of God without us not any thing in us I will not deny but that the word grace is used for the effects of it inherent holinesse wrought in us as in that place Grow in grace and knowledge but yet commonly grace is used for the favour of God And the ignorance of the use of the word in Scripture makes them so extoll inherent holinesse as if that were the grace which should save us As saith the Papist a bird cannot fly without wings the fish swimme without scales the Sculler without his oare cannot get to the haven so without this grace wee cannot fly into heaven and that as the meritorius cause But this is ignorance of the word grace and so the troubles and unbeliefe of the godly heart because it is not so holy as it would be cometh from the mistake of the word grace I shall anticipate my selfe in another subject if I should tell you how comprehensive this word is implying no merit or causality on our part for acceptance but the cleane contrary and therefore for God to deale with us in grace is more then in love for Adam if he had continued righteous he had been partaker of life this had been the gift of God but not by the grace of God as it is strictly taken for Adam was not in a contrary condition to life I will not trouble you with Pareus his apprehension that thinketh Adams righteousnesse could not be called grace therefore reproveth Bellarmine for his title De gratia primi hominis neither will hee acknowledge those habits of holinesse in Christ to be called grace because there was not a contrary disposition in his nature to it as it is in ours And this also Cameron presseth that besides the indebitum which grace implyeth in every subject there is also a demeritum of the contrary Thus then justification is of grace because thy holinesse doth not onely not deserve this but the cleane contrary Now what a cordiall may this be to the broken heart exercised with its sinnes How may the sicke say There I finde health the poore say There I finde riches And as for the Papists who say they set up grace and they acknowledge grace yet first it must be set downe in what sense wee take grace It is not every man that talketh of grace doth therefore set up Scripture-grace Who knoweth not that the Pelagians set up grace They determined that whosoever did not
the glorious image of God put into us for of the later as it is informed by Scripture it is no question Now this is absolutely necessary two waies 1. As a passive qualification of the subject for faith for there cannot be faith in a stone or in a beast no more then there can be sin in them Therefore Reason or the light of Nature makes man in a passive capacity fit for grace although hee hath no active ability for it And when he is compared to a stone it is not in the former sense but the later And secondly it 's necessary by way of an instrument for we cannot beleeve unlesse we understand whether knowledge be an act ingredient into the essence of faith or whether it be prerequisite all hold there must be an act of the understanding one way or other going to beleeve Hence knowledge is put for faith and Hebr. 11. By saith we understand Thus it is necessary as an instrument 3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth crosse the truth of Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none doe crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Nature as it 's the remnant of Gods image This indeed is hard to cleere in many points of Divinity as in the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christs Incarnation which seemeth paradoxall to Reason of whom Tertullian lib. 5. de carne Christi cap. 5. thus Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum est Mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus credibile est quia ineptum Sepultus resurrexit certum est quia impossibile Yet seeing the Apostle calls the naturall knowledge of a man Truth and all truth is from God which waies soever it come there can therefore be no contradiction between it And hereupon our Divines doe when they have confuted the Poposh doctrine of Transubstantiation by Scripture shew also that for a body to be in two places is against the principles of Nature They indeed call for faith in this point and Lapide upon these words Hoc est corpus meum saith If Christ should aske me at the day of judgment Why did you beleeve the bread to be the body of Christ I will answer This text if I be deceived These words have deceived me But we must compare place with place and Scripture with Scripture As for the doctrine of the Trinity though it be above Reason and we cannot look into that mysterie no more then an Owle can into the Sun Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies beames yet it is not against it 4. The same object may be knowne by the light of Nature and by the light of Faith This may easily be understood I may know there is a God by the light of Nature and I may beleeve it because the Scripture faith so so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made and by arguments know it was made and this is called faith by James The divels beleeve that is they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God and feel it by experience not that they have faith for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God and hath accompanying it pia affectio to him that speaketh as the first truth Faith therefore and the light of Nature goe to the knowledge of the same thing different waies faith doth because of the testimony and divine revelation of God the light of Nature doth because of arguments in the thing it selfe by discourse And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding but its simple and apprehensive 5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary yet it is not The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith a Judge in matters of faith The Lutheran seemeth to depresse Reason too much and the Socinian exalteth it too high They make it not onely an instrument but a Judge and thereupon they reject the greatest mysteries of Religion I know some have endeavoured to shew that Religio est summa ratio and there are excellent men that have proved the truth of the Christian Religion by Reason and certainly if we can by Reason prove there is any Religion at all we may by the same Reason prove that the Christian Religion is the true one But who doth not see how uncertaine Reason is in comparison of Faith I doe not therefore like that assertion of one who affects to be a great Rationalist it is Chillingworth that saith We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we have the greatest Reason that this is the Word of God But we must not confound the instrument and the Judge holy truthes they are Scripture truthes though hammered out by Reason As the Smith that takes golden plate and beates it into what shape he pleaseth his hammer doth not make it gold but onely gold of such a shape And thus also Reason doth not make a truth divine onely holds it forth and declareth it in such a way 6. It s altogether insufficient to prescribe or set downe any worship of Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship God Hence God doth so often forbid us to walk after our owne imaginations and to doe that which we shall choose The Apostle calleth it Will-worship when a mans Will is the meere cause of it Now its true men are more apt to admire this as we see in the Pharisees and Papists they dote upon their Traditions more then Gods Institutions Hence Raymundus a Papist speaking of the Masse It is saith he as full of mysteries as the sea is full of drops of water as the heaven hath Angels as the firmament hath starres and the earth little crummes of sand But what saith our Saviour Luk. 18. that which is highly esteemed before men is abomination before God That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to idols and false-worship It s true indeed even in worship light of Nature and prudence is instrumentally required to order the Institutions of God but as Reason may not make a new Article of Faith so neither a new part of worship Now Natures in sufficiency is described in these three reasonings 1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye It 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eie was well called by Parisiensis a madness in some who doubted not to say The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then by the Scriptures The people of Israel would have sensible gods that they might see them and certainly men doe as much delight in sensible pompous worship as children doe in gay babies therefore the Prophet speaketh of their goodly images But all this ariseth because they are ignorant of spirituall worship and cannot tell how to make spirituall advantage from God
Martyr that in causes and effects there is a kinde of circle one increasing the other As the clouds arise from the vapours then these fall down again and make vapours only you must acknowledge one first cause which had not its being from the other and this is the Spirit of God which at first did work faith The second errour is of the Papists that maketh this difference Errour 2 between the Law and the Gospel That the same thing is called the Law while it is without the Spirit and when it hath the Spirit it is called the Gospel This is to confound the Law and Gospel and bring in Justification by works The third is of the Socinian mentioned afterwards These rocks avoided we come to consider the place and first I Errour 3 may demand Whether any under the Old Testament were made partakers of Gods Spirit or no If they were how came they by it There can be no other way said but that God did give his Spirit in all those publique Ordinances unto the beleeving Israelites so that although they did in some measure obey the Law yet they did it not by the power of the Law but by the power of Grace Again in the next place which hath alwaies much prevailed with me did not the people of God receive the Grace of God offered in the Sacraments at that time We constantly maintain against the Papists that our Sacraments and theirs differ not for substance Therefore in Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb they were made partakers of Christ as well as we yet the Apostle doth as much exclude Circumcision and those Jewish Ordinances from Grace as any thing else Therefore that there may be no contradiction in Scripture some other way is to be thought upon about the exposition of these words Some there are therefore that doe understand by the Spirit the wonderfull and miraculous works of Gods Spirit for this was reserved till the times of the Messias and by these miracles his doctrine was confirmed to be from Heaven and to this sense the fifth verse speaketh very expresly and Beza doth confesse that this is the principall scope of the Apostle though he will not exclude the other gracious works of Gods Spirit And if this should be the meaning it were nothing to our purpose Again thus it may be explained as by faith is meant the doctrine of faith so by the works of the Law is to be understood the doctrine of the works of the Law which the false Apostles taught namely that Christ was not enough to justification unlesse the works of the Law were put in as a cause also And if this should be the sense of the Text then it was cleare that the Galathians were not made partakers of Gods Spirit by the corrupt doctrine that was taught them alate by their seducers but before while they did receive the pure doctrine of Christ and therefore it was their folly having begun in the spirit to end in the flesh This may be a probable interpretation But that which I shall stand upon is this The Jewes and false Apostles they looked upon the Law as sufficient to save them without Christ consider Rom. 2. 17 18 19. or when they went furthest they joyned Christ and the observance of the Morall Law equally together for justification and salvation whereas the Law separated from Christ did nothing but accuse and condemne not being able to help the soul at all Therefore it was a vain thing in them to hope for any such grace or benefit as they did by it So that the Apostles scope is not absolutely to argue against the benefit of the Law which David and Moses did so much commend but against it in the sense as the Jewes did commonly doat upon it which was to have justification by it alone or at the best when they put the Law and Christ together Now both these we disclaime either that God doth use the Law for our justification or that of it self it is able to stirre up the least godly affection in us More places of Scripture are brought against this but they will come in more fitly under the notion of the Law as a covenant Thus therefore I shall conclude this point acknowledgeing that many learned and orthodoxe men speak otherwise and that there is a difficulty in clearing every particular about this Question but as yet that which I have delivered carrieth the more probability with me and I will give one text more which I have not yet mentioned and that is Act. 7. 38. where the Morall Law that Moses is said to receive that he might give the Israelites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lively Oracles that is not verba vitae but verba viva vivificantia so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving life not that we could have life by vertue of any obedience to them but when we by grace are inabled to obey them God out of his mercy bestoweth eternall life Let me also adde this that I the rather incline to this opinion because I see the Socinians urging these places or the like where justification and faith is said to be by Christ and the Gospel that they wholly deny that any such thing as grace and justification was under the Law and wonder how any should be so blind as not to see that these priviledges were revealed first by Christ in the Gospel under the new Covenant whereas it is plain that the Apostle instanceth in Abraham and David who lived under the Law as a schoole-master for the same kinde of justification as ours is And thus I come to another Question which is the proper and immediate ground of strife between the Antinomian and us and from whence they have their name and that is the abrogation of the Morall Law And howsoever I have already delivered many things that doe confirme the perpetuall obligation of it yet I did it not then so directly and professedly as now I shall The Text I have chosen being a very fit foundation to build such a structure upon I will therefore open The Text opened the words and proceed as time shall suffer The Apostle Paul having laid down in verses preceding the nature of justification so exactly that we may finde all the causes efficient meritorious formall instrumentall and finall described as also the consequent of this truth which is the excluding of all self-confidence and boasting in what we doe he draweth a conclusion or inference ver 26. And this conclusion is laid down first affirmatively and positively A man is justified by faith the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all equivalent with the Apostle And then to prevent all errours and cavils he doth secondly lay it down exclusively without works And this proposition he doth extend to the Jewes and Gentiles also from the unity or onenesse of God
of Israel Yea if wee would speake exactly and strictly the bookes of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb. 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament hee doth not meane the writings or bookes but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant 2. In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not medle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore wee see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore wee have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinckled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that hee may establish them to be a people unto himselfe and that hee may be a God unto them Againe you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his waies And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plaine the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle calls it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the bookes and writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian calls the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Onely the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodoxe and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus That it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing onely as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secundary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistles and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousness of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but wee find this in effect Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the
Father hath commanded me so I you John 15. 10. If you keep my commandements and abide in love c. And indeed if it were not a commandement it could not be called an obedience of Christ for that doth relate to a command Now this I inferre hence that to doe a thing out of obedience to a command because a command doth not inferre want of love although I grant that the commandement was not laid upon Christ as on us either to direct him or quicken him Besides all the people of God have divers relations upon which their obedience lyeth they are Gods servants and that doth imply obedientiam servi though not obedientiam servilem Againe a Beleever may look to the reward and yet have a spirit of love how much rather look to the command of God A godly man may have amorem mercedis though not amorem mercenarium And lastly there is no godly man but he hath in part some unwillingnesse to good things and therefore needs the Law not onely to direct but to exhort and goad forward Even as I said the tamed horse needeth a spur as well as the unbroken colt 4. Though Christ hath obeyed the Law fully yet that doth not exempt 4. Christs Obedience exempts not us from ours us from our obedience to it for other ends then he did it And I think that if the Antinomian did fully inform himselfe in this thing there were an agreement for we all ought to be zealous against those Pharisaicall and Popish practices of setting up any thing in us though wrought by the grace of God as the matter of our justification But herein they do not distinguish or well argue The works of the Law do not justifie therefore they are needlesse or not requisite for say they if Christ hath fully obeyed the righteousnesse of the Law and that is made ours therefore it is not what ours is but what Christs is And I have heard some doubt whether the maintaining of Christs active obedience imputed to us doth not necessarily imply Antinomianisme but of that more hereafter onely let them lay a parallel with Christs passive obedience He satisfied the curse and threatning of the Law and thereby hath freed us from all punishment yet the Beleevers have afflictions for other ends so doe we the works of Gods Law for other ends then Christ did them A fifth caution or limitation shall be this to distinguish between 5. Beleevers sins condemned though not their persons a Beleever and his personall acts For howsoever the Law doth not curse or condemne him in regard of his state yet those particular sins he commits it condemnes them and they are guilty of Gods wrath though this guilt doth not redound upon the person Therefore it is a very wide comparison of * Dr. Crisp one that a man under grace hath no more to doe with the Law then an English-man hath with the lawes of Spaine or Turkie For howsoever every Beleever be in a state of grace so that his person is justified yet being but in part regenerated so farre as his sinnes are committed they are threatned and condemned in him as well as in another for there is a simple guilt of sin and a guilt redundant upon the person 6. That the Law is not therefore to be decryed because we have no 6. Inability to keep the Law exempts not from obedience to it power to keep the Law For so we have no power to obey the Gospell It is an expression an Antinomian * Dr. Crisp useth The Law saith he speaketh to thee if troubled for sin Doe this and live Now this is as if a Judge should bid a malefactor If you will not be hanged take all England and carry it upon your shoulders into the West Indies What comfort were this Now doth not the Gospel when it bids a man beleeve speak as impossible a thing to a mans power It 's true God doth not give such a measure of grace as is able to fulfill the Law but we have faith enough evangelically to justifie us But that is extraneous to this matter in hand It followes therefore that the Law taken most strictly and the Gospel differ in other considerations then in this 7. They do not distinguish between that which is primarily and per 7. The Law though primarily it requireth perfect holinesse yet it excludes not a Mediatour se in the Law and that which is occasionally It cannot be denied but the Decalogue requireth primarily a perfect holinesse as all lawes require exactnesse but yet it doth not exclude a Mediatour The Law saith Doe this and live and it doth not say None else shall doe this for thee and then thou shalt live For if so then it had been injustice in God to have given us a Christ I therefore much wonder at one who in his book speaks thus The Law doth not onely deprive us of comfort but it will let no body else speak a word of comfort because it is a rigid keeper and he confirmeth it by that place Galat. 3. 23. But how short this is appeareth 1. Because what the Apostle calleth the Law here he called the Scripture in generall before 2. He speaketh it generally of all under that forme of Moses his regiment so that the Fathers should have no comfort by that meanes Use 1. Of instruction How dangerous an errour it is to deny The Law though it cannot justifie us is notwithstanding good and not to be rejected the Law for is it good and may it be used well then take we heed of rejecting it What because it is not good for justification is it in no sense else good Is not gold good because you cannot eat on it and feed on it as you do meat Take the precept of the Gospel yea take the Gospel acts as To beleeve this as it is a work doth not justifie Therefore that opinion which makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere to justifie may as well take in other acts of obedience But because faith as it is a work doth not justifie doe you therefore reject beleeving A man may abuse all the ordinances of the Gospel as well as the Law The man that thinks the very outward work of baptism the very outward work of receiving a sacrament will justifie him doth as much dishonour God as a Jew that thought circumcision or the sacrifices did justifie him You may quickly turn all the Gospel into the Law in that sense you may as well say What need I pray what need I repent it cannot justifie me as to deny the Law because it cannot Use 2. How vaine a thing it is to advance grace and Christ Grace and Christ not to be advanced oppositely to the Law oppositely to the Law nay they that destroy one destroy also the other Who prizeth the city of refuge so much as the malefactour that is pursued by guilt Who desireth the brasen Serpent but
make from this doctrine If Christs righteousnesse be ours then there is no sin in us seen by God then we are as righteous as Christ argueth the Antinomian and this absurdity the Papists would put on us 8. It keeps a man in a slavish servile way in all his duties For 8 Keeps a man slavish in all his duties how must that man be needs tossed up and downe which hath no other ground of peace then the works of grace How is the humble heart soon made proud how is the heavenly heart soon become earthly Now you may see the Scripture speaking much against doubting and feares and James 1. it is made the canker-worme that devoureth all our duties Therefore the Scripture doth name some words that doe oppose this Evangelicall temper of sons as Be not afraid but beleeve so Why doubted ye the word signifieth to be in bivio that a man cannot tell which waies to take to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up and downe as meteors in the aire Now how can a man be bold by any thing that is his By faith we have confidence and boldnesse faith is confidence and faith works confidence but faith whose object is Christ not any thing of ours it 's made the first word also we can speak when we are made sons to cry Abba Father 9. A man may as lawfully joyne Saints or Angels in his mediation 9. Joynes a mans owne graces to Christs mediation with Christ as graces Why is that doctrine of making Angels and Saints mediators and intercessors so odious but because it joyneth Christ and others together in that great work Dost not thou the like when thou joynest thy love and grace with Christs obedience The Papist saith Let such and such an holy Saint save me and thou sayest Let my holy love let my holy repentance save me What advantage then hast thou if thou criest downe Saints and then makest thy selfe one in a Popish way Could therefore thy graces speak they would say as the Angell to John that would worship him Worship thou God worship thou Christ put thy trust in Christ he hath onely borne our sins so as to take them away and therefore as grosse Idolatry makes the works of God a god so doth more subtle Idolatry make the workes of Christ a Christ 10. It overthroweth the grace of hope When faith is destroyed 10. Overthrowes hope then also hope is This grace of hope is the great support of a Christian now if it be placed in Christ and the promises it is as firme as faith therefore saith the Apostle of hope Rom. 5. It makes not ashamed but if it were an hope in our selves how often should wee be confounded That is good of Austine Noli sperare de te sed de Deo tuo nam si speras de te anima tua conturbatur ad te quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te It 's an ignorant distinction among Papists that they may have a certainty of hope but not of faith in matters of salvation whereas they have both the like certainty and differ onely thus faith doth for the present receive the things promised and hope keeps up the heart against all difficulties till it come to enjoy them Now to have such an hope as the Papists define partim è gratia Dei and partim à meritis nostris proveniens must needs be destructive 11. It taketh away the glory due to God in this great work of Justification 11. Robs God of his glory If you have not meat or drink but by God shall you have pardon of sin without him Abraham beleeved and gave God glory We are apt to account beleeving no glory to God but could wee mortifie our corruptions more and more could wee exhaust and spend our selves yet this is no more to give glory to God then when we beleeve Now it is good to possesse Christians with this principle To beleeve in Christ is to give glory to Christ we naturally would think to go far on pilgrimages to macerate our bodies were likelier waies for our salvation but this would be mans glory more then Gods glory Therefore how did that wretched Monk dying blasphemously say Redde mihi aternam vitam quam debes 12. It maketh sin and the first Adam more and greater for condemnation 12. Makes more in sin to damne then in Christ to save then Christ for salvation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. makes the opposition and sheweth that the gift is far above the transgression Therefore take thy sins in all the aggravations of them there is not more in them to damne then in Christ to save Why should sin be an heavie sin a great sin and Christ not also a wonderfull saving Christ When we say The guilt of sin is infinite that is only infinite objectivè but now Christs merits and obedience are infinite meritoriè they have from the dignity of the person an infinite worth in them and therefore as sin is exceeding sinfull so let Christ be an exceeding Christ and grace exceeding grace 13. It overthroweth the true doctrine of sanctification which declareth 13. Overthrowes the doctrine of sanctification it to be inchoate and imperfect that our faith hath much unbeliefe in it our best gold much drosse our wine much water It is true both the Papists and the Antinomian agree in this errour that because sin is covered therefore there can be no sin seen in the godly that the soul in this life is without spot and wrinckle but they doe it upon different grounds whereas Paul Rom. 7. doth abundantly destroy that principle How blasphemous is that direction of the Papists to men dying who are to pray thus Conjunge Domine obsequium meum cum omnibus qua Christus passus est pro me And how absurd is that doctrine Si bona opera sunt magis bona quà m mala opera mala fortiùs merentur vitam aternam 14. It taketh away the true doctrine of the Law as if that were 14. Takes away the doctrine of the Law possible to be kept For works could not justifie us unlesse they were answerable to that righteousnesse which God commands but Rom. 3. that which was impossible for the Law Christ hath fulfilled in us 15. It overthroweth the consideration of a man while he is justified 15. Overthroweth the consideration of man while he is justified For they look upon him as godly but the Scripture as ungodly Rom. 4. who justifieth the ungodly Some by ungodly meane any prophane man whereas it is rather one that is not perfectly godly for Abraham is here made the ungodly person I know it is explained otherwise but certainly this is most genuine Use 1. Of Instruction How uncharitably and falsly many men charge it generally upon our godly Ministers that they are nothing but Justitiaries and Legall Preachers For do not all sound and godly Ministers hold forth this Christ this righteousnesse
this person doe thus the hatefullnesse thereof is laid upon Christ Is not this such a doctrine that must needes please an ungodly heart 3. In the denying of gaining any thing by them even any peace of 3. They deny any gaine or losse to come by them heart or losing it by them Now this goeth contrary to Scripture Thus page 139. the Antinomian saith The businesse we are to doe is this that though there be sinnes committed yet there is no peace broken because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ there is a reparation of the damage before the damage it selfe be committed And againe page 241. If God come to reckon with beleevers for sinne either he must aske something of them or not If not why are they troubled If so then God cannot bring a new reckoning And in other places If a man look to get any thing by his graces hee will have nothing but knocks To answer these it is true if a man should look by any repentance or grace to have heaven and pardon as a cause or merit this were to be ignorant of the imperfection of all our graces and the glorious greatnesse of those mercies What proportion hath our faith or godly sorrow with the everlasting favour and good pleasure of God But first the Scripture useth severe and sharp threatnings even unto the godly where they neglect to repent or goe on in sin Rom. 8. 13. If yee live after the flesh you shall die especially consider that place Hebr. 12. two last verses the Apostle alludeth to that place Deut. 4. and he saith Our God as well as the God of the Jewes who appeared in terrour is a consuming fire Now then if the Scripture threatens thus to men living in sin if they doe not they may finde comfort 2 dly Our holy duties they have a promise of pardon and eternall life though not because of their worth yet to their presence and therefore may the godly rejoyce when they finde them in themselves Lastly their ground is still upon that false bottome Because our sins are laid upon Christ What then they may be laid upon us in other respects to heale us to know how bitter a thing it is to sinne against God God doth here as Joseph with his brethren he caused them to be bound and to be put in goales as if now they were to smart for their former impiety 4. They deny them to be signes of grace 4. In denying them to be signes and testimonies of grace or Christ dwelling in us And here indeed one would wonder to see how laborious an Author is to prove that no inherent graces can be signes and he selects three instances Of universality of obedience Of sincerity and love to the brethren concluding that there are two evidences onely one revealing which is the Spirit of God immediatly the other receiving and that is faith Now in answering of this wee may shew briefly how many weak props this discourse leaneth upon 1. In confounding the instrumentall evidencing with the efficient Not holy works say they but the Spirit Here he doth oppose subordinates Subordinata non sunt opponenda sed componenda As if a man should say We see not by the beames or reflection of the Sun but the Sun Certainly every man is in darknesse and like Hagar seeth not a fountaine though neare her till her eyes be opened Thus it is in grace 2. We say that a Christian in time of darknesse and temptation is not to goe by signes and markes but obedientially to trust in God as David calls upon his soul often and the word is emphaticall signifying such a relying or holding as a man doth that is falling down into a pit irrecoverably 3. His Arguments against sincerity and universality of obedience goe upon two false grounds 1. That a man cannot distinguish himselfe from hypocrites which is contrary to the Scriptures exhortation 2. That there can be no assurance but upon a full and compleat work of godlinesse All which are popish arguments 4. All those arguments will hold as strongly against faith for Are there not many beleevers for a season Is there not a faith that indureth but for a while May not then a man as soone know the sincerity of his heart as the truth of his faith Now let us consider their grounds for this strange assertion 1. Because Roman 4. it is said that God justifieth the ungodly How God may be said to justifie the ungodly Now this hath a two-fold answer 1. That which our Divines doe commonly give that these words are not to be understood in sensu composito but diviso and antecedenter he that was ungodly is being justified made godly also though that godlinesse doe not justifie him Therefore they compare these passages with those of making the blind to see and deafe to heare not that they did see while they were blind but those that were blind doe now see and this is true and good But I shall secondly answer it with some learned men that ungodly there is meant of such who are so in their nature considered having not an absolute righteousnesse yet at the same time beleevers even as Abraham was and faith of the ungodly man is accounted to him for righteousnesse So then the subject of justification is a sinner yet a beleever Now it 's impossible that a man should be a beleever and his heart not purified Acts 15. for whole Christ is the object of his faith who is received not onely to justifie but to sanctifie Hence Rom. 8. where the Apostle seemeth to make an exact order he begins with Prescience that is approbative and complacentiall not in a Popish or Arminian sense then Predestination then Calling then Justification then Glorification I will not trouble you with the dispute in which place Sanctification is meant Now the Antinomian he goeth upon that as true which the Papist would calumniate us with That a profane ungodly man if beleeving shall be justified We say this proposition supposeth an impossibility that faith in Christ or closing with him can stand with those sins because faith purifieth the heart By faith Christ dwells in our hearts Ephes 3. Therefore those expressions of the Antinomians are very dangerous and unfound and doe indeed confirme the Papists calumnies Another place they much stand upon is Rom. 5. Christ dyed for us while we were enemies while we were sinners But 1. if Christ dyed for us while we were enemies why doe they say That if a man be as great an enemy as enmity it selfe can make a man if he be willing to take Christ and to close with Christ he shall be pardoned which we say is a contradiction For how can an enemy to Christ close with Christ So that this would prove more then in some places they would seem to allow Besides Christ dyed not onely to justifie but save us now will they hence therefore inferre that profane men living
the flesh yee shall die So Except yee repent yee shall all likewise perish Such places are so frequent that its a wonder an Antinomian can passe them all over and alwaies speake of those places which declare Gods grace to us but not our duty to him Without holinesse no man can see God now by the Antinomians argument as a man may be justified while he is wicked and doth abide so so also he may be glorified and saved for this is their principle that Christ hath purchased justification glory and salvation for us even though sinners and enemies 6. They are in their owne nature a defence against sinne and corruption 6. Because they are a defence against sin If we doe but consider the nature of these graces though imperfect yet that will pleade for the necessity of them Ephes 6. 14 16. There you have some graces a shield and some a breast-plate now every souldier knoweth the necessity of these in time of war It s true the Apostle speaks of the might of the Lord and prayer must be joyned to these but yet the principall doth not oppose the instrumentall Hence Rom. 13. they are called the weapons of the light It s Luthers observation He doth not call the works of darknesse the weapons of darknesse but good workes he doth call weapons quia bonis operibus debemus uti tanquam armis to resist Satan and hee calls them the weapons of light because they are from God the fountaine of light and because they are according to Scripture the true light although Drusius thinketh light is here used for victory as Jud. 5. 31. Psal 132. 17 18. and so the word is used of Homer and Marcellinus speakes of an ancient custome when at supper time the children brought in the candles they cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. They are necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the 7. Because necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the Spirit of God Spirit of God Hence it 's called faith which worketh by love The Papist Lorinus thinketh we speak a contradiction because sometimes wee say faith only justifieth sometimes that unlesse our faith be working it cannot justifie us but here is no contradiction for it 's onely thus Faith which is a living faith doth justifie though not as it doth live for faith hath two notable acts 1. To apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and thus it justifieth 2. To purifie and cleanse the heart and to stirre up other graces and thus it doth not And thus Paul and James may be reconciled for James brings that very passage to prove Abraham was not justified by faith alone which Paul brings to prove he was because one intends to shew that his faith was a working faith and the other that that alone did concurre to justifie and thus in this sense some learned men say Good workes are necessary to preserve a man in the state of justification although they doe not immediatly concurre to that act as in a man although his shoulders and breast doe not concurre immediatly to the act of seing yet if a mans eye and head were not knit to those parts hee could not see and so though the fire doe not burne as it is light yet it could not burne unlesse it were so for it supposeth then the subject would be destroyed It s a saying of John Husse Vbi bona opera non apparent ad extra ibi fides non est ad intra Therefore as Christ while he remained the second Person was invisible but when hee was incarnated then he became visible so must thy faith be incarnated into works and it must become flesh as it were 8. They are necessary by debt and obligation So that God by his 8 By debt and obligation soveraignty might have commanded all obedience from man though he should give him no reward of eternall life Therefore David did well argue that we cannot merit at Gods hand because the more good we are enabled to doe we are the more beholding to God Hence it is that we are his servants Servus non est persona sed res and we are more servants to God then the meerest slave can be to man for we have our being and power to work from him And this obligation is so perpetuall and necessary that no covenant of grace can abolish it for gratia non destruit naturam 9. By command of God This is the will of God your sanctification 9. By command of God 1 Thes 43. Rom. 12. 2. So that you may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God And thus the Law of God still remaineth as a rule and directory And thus Paul professed hee delighted in the Law of God in his inward man and that place Rom. 12. presseth our renovation comparing us to a sacrifice implying we are consecrated and set apart to him a dog or a swine might not be offered to God And the word Offer doth imply our readinesse and alacrity He also addeth many epithets to the will of God that so we may be moved to rejoyce in it There is therefore no disputing or arguing against the will of God If our Saviour Mat. 5. saith He shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven that breaketh the least commandement how much more inexcusable is the Antinomian who teacheth the abolition of all of them 10. They are necessary by way of comfort to our selves And this 10. By way of comfort to our selves opposeth many Antinomian passages who forbid us to take any peace by our holinesse Now it 's true to take them so as to put confidence in them to take comfort from them as a cause that cannot be for who can look upon any thing he doth with that boldnesse It was a desperate speech of Panigarola a Papist as Rivet relates who called it folly to put confidence onely in Christs bloud We know no godly man satisfieth his owne heart in any thing he doth much lesse can he the will of God We cannot at the same time say Lord forgive me and Pay me what thou owest yet these good workes though imperfect may be a great comfort unto us as the testimony of Gods eternall love to us Thus did Hezekiah 2 Kings 20. 3. Hezekiah is not there a proud Pharisee but a thankfull acknowledger of what is in him and some consider that this temptation might fall upon Hezekiah that when he had laboured to demolish all those superstitions and now became dangerously sick that he had not done well therefore he comforts himselfe in his heart that he did those things with not that he meant an absolute perfect heart but sincere and comparatively perfect Hence it 's observed the word I have walked is in Hiphil I have made my selfe to walke implying the dulnesse and sluggishnesse and aversnesse he found in his heart to that duty so that prayer being as one calls it well Speculum animi the soules glasse
at this time not against the Antinomianisme in thy judgement onely but in thine heart also As Luther said Every man hath a Pope in his belly so every man hath an Antinomian Paul found his flesh rebelling against the Law of God reconcile the Law and the Gospel Justification and Holinesse Follow holinesse as earnestly as if thou hadst nothing to help thee but that and yet rely upon Christs merits as fully as if thou hadst no holinesse at all And what though thy intent be onely to set up Christ and Grace yet a corrupted opinion may soon corrupt a mans life as rheume falling from the head doth putrefie the lungs and other vitall parts LECTURE V. 1 TIM 1. 9. Knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man WE are at this time to demolish one of the strongest holds that the Adversary hath For it may be supposed that the eighth verse cannot be so much against them as the ninth is for them Therefore Austin observeth well The Apostle saith he joyning two things as it were contrary together doth monere movere both admonish and provoke the Reader to find out the true answer to this question how both of them can be true We must therefore say to these places as Moses did to the two Israelites fighting Why fall you out seeing you are brethren Austin improveth the objection thus If the Law be good when used lawfully and none but the righteous man can use it lawfully how then should it not be but to him who onely can make the true use of it Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us consider who they are that are said to know and secondly what is said to be knowne The subject knowing is here in this Verse in the singular number in the Verse before in the plurall it 's therefore doubted whether this be affirmed of the same persons or no. Some Expositoâ—s think those in the eighth and these in the ninth are the same and that the Apostle doth change the number from the plurall to the singular which is very frequent in Scripture as Galat. 6. 1. Others as Salmeron make a mysticall reason in the changing Because saith he there are but few that know the Law is not made for the righteous therefore hee speaketh in the singular number There is a second kind of Interpreters and they do not make this spoken of the same but understand this word as a qualification of him that doth rightly use the Law Thus The Law is good if a man use it lawfully and he useth it lawfully that knoweth it 's not made for the righteous Which of these interpretations you take is not much materiall onely this is good to observe that the Apostle using these words We know and Knowing doth imply what understanding all Christians ought to have in the nature of the Law Secondly let us consider what Law he here speaks of Some have understood it of the ceremoniall Law because of Christs death that was to be abolished and because all the ceremonies of the Law were convictions of sins and hand-writings against those that used them But this cannot be for circumcision was commanded to Abraham a righteous man and so to all the godly under the Old Testament and the persons who are opposed to the righteous man are such who transgresse the Morall Law Others that do understand it of the Morall Law apply it to the repetition and renovation of it by Moses for the Law being at first made to Adam upon his fall wickednesse by degrees did arise to such an height that the Law was added because of transgressions as Paul speaketh But we may understand it of the Morall Law generally onely take notice of this that the Apostle doth not here undertake a theologicall handling of the use of the Law for that he doth in other places but he brings it in as a generall sentence to be accoÌ„modated to his particular meaning concerning the righteous man here Wee must not interpret it of one absolutely righteous but one that is so quoad conatum and desiderium for the people of God are called righteous because of the righteousnesse that is in them although they be not justified by it The Antinomian and Papist doe both concurre in this error though upon different grounds that our righteousnesse and workes are perfect and therefore doe apply those places A people without spot or wrinkle c. to the people of God in this life and that not onely in justification but in sanctification also As saith the Antinomian in a dark dungeon when the doore is opened and the sun-light come in though that be dark in it selfe yet it is made all light by the sun Or As water in a red glasse though that be not red yet by reason of the glasse it lookes all red so though we be filthy in our selves yet all that God seeth in us lookes as Christs not onely in justification but sanctification This is to be confuted hereafter Thirdly let us take notice how the Antinomian explaineth this place and what hee meanes by this Text. The old Antinomian Islebius Agricola states the question thus Whether the Law be to a righteous man as a teacher ruler commander and requirer of obedience actively Or Whether the righteous man doth indeed the works of the Law but that is passivè the Law is wrought by him but the Law doth not work on him So then the question is not Whether the things of the Law be done for they say the righteous man is active to the Law and not that to him but Whether when these things are done they are done by a godly man admonished instructed and commanded by the Law of God And this they deny As for the later Antinomian he speaketh very uncertainly and inconsistently Sometimes he grants the Law is a rule but very hardly and seldome then presently kicketh all downe againe For saith he it cannot be conceived that it should rule but also it should reigne and therefore think it impossible that one act of the Law should be without the other The damnatory power of the Law is inseparable from it Can you put your conscience under the mandatory power and yet keep it from the damnatory Assertion of Grace page 33. Againe the same Author page 31. If it be true that the Law cannot condemne it is no more a Law saith Luther I say not that you have dealt as uncourteously with the Law as did that King with Davids servants who cut off their garments by the midst but you have done worse for even Joab-like under friendly words you have destroyed the life and soul of the Law You can as well take your Appendices from the Law as you terme them and yet let it remaine a true law as you can take the braines and heart of a man and yet leave him a man still By this it appeareth that if the Law doth not curse a man neither can it command
of our Saviour in a sense which some explaine it in I come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance By repentance they meane conversion and by the righteous not Pharisees but such as are already converted Now that these interpretations much agreeing in one may the better be assented to consider some parallel places of Scripture Galat. 5. 23. speaking of the fruits of the spirit Against such there is no law The Law was not made to these to condemne them or accuse them so that what is said of the actions and graces of the godly may be applyed to the godly themselves You may take another parallel Rom. 13. 3. Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evill Wouldst thou not be afraid of them doe no evill And thus the Apostle to shew how the grace of love was wrought in the Thessalonians hearts I need not saith he write to you to love for you have been taught of God to doe this His very saying I need not write was a writing so that these expressions doe hold forth no more then that the godly so farre as they are regenerate doe delight in the Law of God and it is not a terrour to them And if because the godly have an ingenuous free spirit to doe what is good he need not the Law directing or regulating it would follow as well he needed not the whole Scripture he needed not the Gospel that calls upon him to beleeve because faith is implanted in his heart This rock cannot be avoided And therefore upon this ground because the godly are made holy in themselves the Swencfeldians did deny the whole Scripture to be needfull to a man that hath the Spirit And that which the Antinomian doth limit to the Law It is a killing letter they apply to the whole Scripture and I cannot see how they can escape this argument Hence Chrysostome that spake so hyperbolically about the Law speaks as high about the Scriptures themselves We ought to have the word of God engraven in our hearts so that there should be no need of Scripture And Austin speakes of some that had attained to such holinesse that they lived without a Bible Now who doth not see what a damnable and dangerous position this would be That the Law must needs have a directive regulating and informing power over a godly man will appeare in these two particulars 1. We cannot discerne the true worship of God from superstition 1. The true worship of God cannot be discerned from false but by the Law and idolatry but by the first and second Commandement It is true many places in Scripture speak against false worship but to know when it is a false worship the second Commandement is a speciall director How do the orthodox Writers prove Images unlawfull how doe they prove that the setting up any part or meanes of worship which the Lord hath not commanded is unlawfull but by the second Commandement And certainly the want of exact knowledge in the latitude of this Commandement brought in all idolatry and superstition And we shall shew you God willing in time that the Decalogue is not onely Moses his ten Commandements but it 's Christs ten Commandements and the Apostles ten Commandements as well as his 2. Another instance at this time is in comparing the depth of 2. The depth of sin cannot be discovered without it the Law and the depth of our sinne together There is a great deale more spirituall excellency and holinesse commanded in the Law of God the Decalogue then we can reach unto Therefore we are to study into it more and more Open mine eyes that I may understand the wonderfull things of thy Law thus David prayeth though godly and his eyes were in a great measure opened by the Spirit of God And as there is a depth in the Law so a depth in our originall and native sinne There is a great deale more flith in us then we can or doe discover Psal 19. Who can understand his errours Cleanse me from secret sins Therefore there being such a world of filth in thy carnall heart what need is there of the spirituall and holy Law to make thee see thy selfe thus polluted and abominable Certainly a godly man groweth partly by discovering that pride that deadnesse that filth in his soule he never thought of or was acquainted with The practicall use that is to be made of this Scripture explained is to pray and labour for such a free heavenly heart that the Law of God and all the precepts of it may not be a terrour to you but sweetnesse and delight Oh how I love thy Law cryeth David he could not expresse it And againe My soule breaketh in the longing after thy judgements In another place he and Job doe account of them above their necessary food you do not hale and drag an hungry or thirsty man to his bread and water I doe not speak this but that it 's lawfull to eye the reward as Moses and Christ did yea and to fear God for who can think that the Scripture using these motives would stirre up in us sinfull and unlawfull affections but yet such ought to be the filiall and son-like affections to God and his will that we ought to love and delight in his Commandements because they are his as the poore son loveth his father though he hath no lordship or rich inheritance to give him There is this difference between a free and violent motion a free motion is that which is done for its owne selfe sake a violent is that which cometh from an outward principle the patient helping it not forward at all Let not to pray to beleeve to love God be violent motions in you Where faith worketh by love this maketh all duties rellish this overcometh all difficulties The Lacedemonians when they went to war did sacrifice to Love because love only could make hardship and wounds and death it selfe easie Doe thou therefore pray that the love of God may be shed abroad in thine heart and consider these two things 1. How the Law laid upon Christ to dye and suffer for thee was not a burthen or terrour to him How doth he witnesse this by crying out With desire I have desired to drink of this cup Think with thy self If Christ had been as unwilling to dye for me as I to pray to him to be patient to be holy what had become of my soule If Christ therefore said of that Law to be a Mediatour for thee Lo I come to doe thy will O God thy Law is within mine heart how much rather ought this to be true of thee in any thing thou shalt doe for him Thou hast not so much to part with for him as he for thee What is thy life and wealth to the glory of his Godhead which was laid aside for a while And then secondly consider how that men love lusts for lusts sake they love the world because of the
world Now evill is not so much evill as good is good sin is not so much sin as God is God and Christ is Christ If therefore a profane man because of his carnall heart can love his sin though it cost him hell because of the sweetnesse in it shall not the godly heart love the things of God because of the excellency in them But these things may be more enlarged in another place LECTURE VI. ROM 2. 14 15. For when the Gentiles which know not the law do the things of the law by nature these having not the law are a law unto themselves which shew the work of the law written in their hearts BEfore I handle the other places of Scripture that are brought by the Antinomians against the Law it is my intent for better methods sake and your more sound instruction to handle the whole theology of the Law of God in the severall distributions of it and that positively controversally and practically and I shall begin first with the law of Nature that God hath imprinted in us and consider of this two waies 1. As it is a meere law and secondly As it was a covenant of works made with Adam And then in time I shall speak of the Morall Law given by Moses which is the proper subject of these controversies The Text I have read is a golden Mine and deserveth diligent digging and searching into Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us answer these Questions 1. Who are meant by the Gentiles here It is ordinarily known Who meant by Gentiles that the Jewes did call all those Gentiles that were not Jewes by way of contempt as the Greeks and Romans called all other nations Barbarians Hence sometimes in the Scripture the word is applyed to wicked men though Jewes as Psal 2. Why doe the heathen rage It may be interpreted of the Pharisees resisting Christ Indeed the Jewes will not confesse that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes is any where applyed to them but this is very false for Genes 17. Abraham is there said to be the father of many nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes therefore they must either deny themselves to be Abraham's seed or else acknowledge this word belonging to them But generally it signifieth those that had not the Lawes of Moses nor did live by them Therefore Gal. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live like a Gentile is not to observe the Lawes of Moses and in this sense it is to be taken here for the Apostles scope is to make good that great charge upon all mankinde both Jew and Gentile that naturally they are wholly in sin and God being no accepter of persons will destroy the one as well as the other And whereas it might be thought very hard to deale thus with the Gentile because no law was delivered unto him as unto the the Jew the Apostle answereth that objection in this place But grant it be understood of such Gentiles then there is a greater question whether it be meant of the Gentiles abiding so or the Gentiles converted and turned beleevers for that the Apostle speakes of such most of the Latine Interpreters both ancient and moderne doe affirme and so the Greek Father Chrysostome and Estius a learned Papist doe think there are so many arguments for it that it 's certaine I confesse they bring many probable reasons but I will not trouble you with them this seeemeth a strong argument against them because the Apostle speaks of such who are without a law and a law to themselves which could not be true of Gentiles converted we take the Apostle therefore to speake of Gentiles abiding so but in this sense there is also a dangerons exposition and a sound one The poysonous interpretation is of the Pelagians who understand the law written in their hearts in the same sense as it is used Jerem 33. even such a fulfilling of the law which will attaine to salvation and this they hold the Heathens by the law and help of nature did sufficiently But this is to overthrow the doctrine of Grace and Christ Therefore the said interpretation is of the Gentiles indeed but yet to understand the law written in their hearts onely of those relicts of naturall reason and conscience which was in the Heathens as is to be proved anon The 2d. Question is easily answered How they are said to be How the Gentiles are said to be without a law without a law to wit without a written law as the Jewes had so that we may say they had a law without a law a law written but not declared The 3d. Question In what sense they are said to doe the things of How said to do the things of the law by nature the law and that by nature To doe the things of the law is not meant universally of all the Heathens for the Apostle shewed how most of them lived in the Chapter before nor secondly universally in regard of the matter contained in the law but some externall acts as Aristides and Socrates with others And here it s disputed Whether a meere Heathen can doe any worke morally good But wee answer No for every action ought to have a supernaturall end viz. the glory of God which they did not aime at therefore we doe refuse that distinction of a morall good and theologicall because every morall good ought to be theologicall The distinction of Morall and Theologicall good rejected they may do that good matter of the law though not well And as for the manner how by nature those Interpreters that understand this Text of Gentiles beleevers say Nature is not here opposed to Grace but to the law written by Moses and therefore make it nature inabled by grace but this is shewed to be improbable By nature therefore we may understand that naturall What is here meant by Nature light of conscience whereby they judged and performed some externall acts though these were done by the help of God The next Question is How this Law is said to be written in their hearts You must not with Austine compare this place with that gracious promise in Jeremy of God writing his law in the hearts of his people There is therefore a two-fold writing in the A two-fold writing of the Law in mens hearts and which here meant hearts of men the first of knowledge and judgement whereby they apprehend what is good and bad the second is in the will and affections by giving a propensity and delight with some measure of strength to do this upon good grounds This later is spoken of by the Prophet in the covenant of Grace and the former is to be understood here as will appeare if you compare this with Chapt. 1. 19. The last Question is How they declare this Law written in their The Law written in mens hearts two waies hearts And that is first externally two waies 1. By making good and
actibus fingat And againe Quae omnia sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa non diis grata And further Istam ignobilem deorum turbam quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit sic adorabimus ut meminerimus cultum ejus ad morem magis pertinere quà m rem Some say Seneca was coetaneous with Paul and that he had Paul's Epistles might he not if so see himselfe described in this phrase detaining the truth in unrighteousnesse But how well doth Austin in the same place stigmatize him Colebat quod reprehendebat agebat quod arguebat quod culpabat adorabat And are there not many such Popish spirits that know their superstitions and falshoods yet because of long custome will not leave them What else was the meaning of Domitianus Calderinus when speaking of going to Masse hee said Eamus ad communem errorem And so it was a speech of a disputing Sophister Sic dico quando sum in scholis sed penes nos sit aliter sentio You see then by this that naturall truth would encline to better actions but it is suppressed When I say naturall light enclineth the heart to good it is to be understood by way of object meerly shewing what is to be desired not that we have any strength naturally to what is good If you aske why truth apprehended by naturall light should be lesse efficacious to alter and new-mould the heart and life then truth received by faith for in the Scripture we reade of wonderfull conversions and the Heathens have but one story that they much boast of of one Palemon if I mistake not who was a great drunkard and came to deride Socrates while he was reading his discourse to his scholars but was so changed by that lecture that he lest off his drunkennesse This alteration was onely in the skin and not in the vitalls What then should be the difference I answer not that one truth in it selfe is stronger then another but the difference is in medio or instrumento the instrument to receive this truth When Nature receives a truth it 's but with a dimme eye and a palsie-hand but when we receive it by faith that is accompanied with the power and might of the holy Ghost The influence of truth by naturall light is like that of the Moon waterish and weak never able to ripen any thing but that of faith is like the influence of the Sun that doth heat and soon bring to maturity 3. The last use of this naturall light is to make men inexcusable 3. It makes men inexcusable for seeing they did not glorifie God according to their knowledge for that they are justly condemned This indeed is not the onely use of the light of Nature as some say but it is a maine one Rom. 1. 20. not that this is the end of God in putting these principles into us but it falleth out by our sinfulness But how are they inexcusable if they could not glorifie God by nature as they ought Some answer the Apostle speaks of excuse in regard of knowledge but if you understand it of power it is true for by our fault we are unable and none went so farre as naturally they were able And thus Nature is considered in the first place Secondly You may consider it as corrupted and obscured by sin The light of Nature as corrupted by sin is an enemy to God and goodness And in this sense it 's no help but a desperate enemy to what is good and the more reason this way the more opposition to God and thus it fell out with all the great naturall Luminists they became vaine in their reasonings the more they enquired and searched the further off they were from what is true 1 Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceiveth not the things of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a man carnall and grosse in sin but a souly man one that doth excolere animam such as Tully and Aristotle Now the wiser these men were the vainer they were Chrysostome's comparison doth well agree with them As if saith hee a king should give much mony to a servant that by it he should make his family more glorious and he goeth presently and spends all his mony upon whores and bawds Thus did the Heathens As Austin wrote to a man of great parts Ornari abs te Diabolus quaerit The Divell seeks to be adorned by thee Hence Egypt that is accounted the mother of Sciences and Moses in regard of knowledge is preferred before the Egyptians yet that was the seat also of Idolaters and so the Astronomers who lifted up themselves above others in their knowledge of heavenly things brought in those monsters into heaven and attributed worship to them and in their worship of their gods they added many feasts and sports Thus they invented an happinesse which Austin calleth Scyllaeum bonum consisting of humane and brutish parts If you ask how this naturall light cometh to be thus obscured I answer three waies 1. By ill education This The light of Nature obscured three waies is like the first concoction or the first settling of the limbs of a man Secondly By long custome and degeneration Hence some Nations have by their publike lawes allowed grosse sins lawfull as some Nations have allowed robberies some incest some that all old men should be throwne downe headlong a steep hill Thirdly By the just judgement of God therefore three times in Rom. 1. God is said to give them up to sin Thirdly You may speak of Nature as informed and enlightened The light of Nature inform'd by Gods word an excellent help by Gods word and while it 's thus you need not cast this Hagar out of doores Let Scripture and the word of God lay the foundation stone and then Reason may build upon it It is Stella his comparison It is with Faith and Reason as with the mould that is at the root of the barren and fruitlesse tree take the mould out and throw in muck or other compost and then put the mould in it will much help the tree which hindred it before Thus lay aside Reason at first and then receive truths by Faith and afterwards improve them by Reason and it will excellently help Divine truths are not founded upon Reason but Scripture yet Reason may bear them up as you see the elme or wall bear up the vine but the elme or wall doth not bring forth the fruit onely the vine doth that As long therefore as the light of Nature is not the rule but ruled and squared by Gods word so long it cannot deceive us The light of Nature as it is a relict of Gods image is necessary in religious and morall things and that two waies The second grand consideration is That the light of Nature is necessary in religious and morall things though it be not sufficient We speak of the light of Nature in the first consideration as it is the residue of
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 God is more offended with those that abuse Gospel light then those that abuse the light of Nature light how much rather then with such who also abuse Gospell light These doe not put light under a bushell but under a dung-hill There are many that are Solifuga 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 waies Vse 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 Three sorts of Christians little better then Heathens 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 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 concerne 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 Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae and the other of the Antinomians who seem to deny all the preparatory workes 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 downe 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 downe these Propositions 1. There is a naturall power of free-will left in us Free-will is There is in man a naturall power by the help of Reason to chuse or refuse this or that thing 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 owne 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 onely 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 its 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 turne 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 wee doe not bid the fire burne 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 This naturall power in man not able to performe naturall actions without Gods generall assistance 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 been some who have thought that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions is onely to give the principles and power of actions and then afterwards we need no further aide then meer 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 above said 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 deale of difference 1. Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions in
divided To this some answer that the All things here spoken in the text are to be limited to men onely so that the things in heaven shall be the spirits of godly men already translated thither and the things in earth those men that are living But suppose it be extended to Angels yet will not this inferre their need of mediation by Christ but onely some benefit to redound unto them by Christ and that is certaine for first by Christ they have a knowledge of the mysteries of our salvation as appeareth Ephes 3. 10. and secondly hereby they have joy in the conversion of a sinner and lastly Angels become hereby reconciled with man and this seemeth to be the most proper and immediate sense of the place So that I cannot see any ground for that assertion which saith Because there is no proportion between a creature and the Creatour therefore there must be a Mediatour And if this hold true of the Angels then it will also hold about Adam for there being no offence or breach made there needed no Mediatour to interpose It 's hard to say Christ would have been incarnated if Adam had Christs incarnation cannot be supposed but upon supposition of Adams fall not sinned All those who hold the necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintaine that though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been incarnated Now when the Scripture nameth this to be the principall end of Christs coming into the world to save that which is lost unlesse this had been we cannot suppose Christs coming into the flesh Whether indeed Christ was not the first object in Gods decree and predestination and then afterwards men and then other things is a far different question from this As for Colos 1. which seemeth to speak of Christ as head of the Church that he might have preheminency in all things this doth not prove his incarnation though no fall of Adam but rather supposeth it 3. Whether the tree of life was a sacrament of Christ to Adam or The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam no. For this also is affirmed by some that the tree of life was a sacrament given to Adam which did represent Christ from whom Adam was to receive his life But upon the former grounds I doe deny the tree of life to have any such sacramentall signification It is true I grant it to be a sacrament for there is no good reason to the contrary but that sacraments may be in the state of innocency onely they did not signifie Christ Why it was called a tree of life is not the same way determined by all some think because it had a speciall quality and efficacy with it to preserve Adam immortall for although he was so made yet there were meanes appointed by God to preserve this state But we will not conclude on this only we say It was a sacrament not only to admonish Adam of his life received from God but also of that happy life which upon his obedience he was alwaies to enjoy Hence Revel 2. 7. happinesse is called eating of the tree of life which is in the midst of Paradise We do not in this exclude Adam from depending upon God for all things or acknowledging him the sole authour of all his blisse but onely there was not then that way of administration of good to us as is now by Christ to man plunged into sin And this must be said that we must not curiously start questions about that state in innocency for the Scripture having related that there was such a state once doth not tell us what would have been upon supposition of his obedience 4. And so we may answer that demand Whether there was The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam any revelation unto Adam of a Christ Now what might be done we cannot say but there is no solid ground to assert it for howsoever the Apostle indeed makes a mysterious application of that speech of Adam unto Christ and his Church to set forth their immediate union yet it doth not follow that Adam did then know any such mysterie Indeed Zanchie saith that Christ did in an humane shape appear and put Adam and Eve together in that conjugall band but we cannot affirme this from Scripture And by this also it doth appeare that the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ had this consideration added unto it as it was given to the Jewes afterward and in that respect it was to be abolished That opinion is very much forced which makes those words of Gods blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath day Genes 1. to be by way of anticipation and therefore would deny the command of the Sabbath to be given to Adam saying there was onely one positive law which was that of not eating the forbidden fruit that was delivered unto Adam Now though this be false yet that consideration of the Sabbath as it was figurative of Christ was not then in the state of the innocency 5. Another maine question is Whether this state of reparation The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude immortality and outward felicity be more excellent then that in innocency Now here we cannot say one is absolutely better then the other only in some respects one is excelled by the other As the first estate of Adam did far exceed this in the rectitude it had being altogether without any sin for he was not created as some would have it in a neutrall estate as being neither good or bad but possibly either such an estate doth plainly repugne that image of God after which he is said to be created Now what a blessed estate it is to have an heart not stained with sin to have no blemish nor spot in the soule will appeare by Paul's bitter complaint Who shall deliver me from this body of death That estate also doth excell ours in the immortality and outward felicity he enjoyed for our second Adam Christ howsoever he hath destroyed the works of sin and Satan yet he hath not fully removed the scars which those sins have left upon us Christ doing here as those Emperors who had taken their enemies prisoners and captives but yet killed them not immediately till the day of triumph came But on the other side our condition is in one respect made The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace happier then Adams which is the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace if once translated into it And this consideration Austin did much presse We have indeed much sin with our grace yet God will not let that spark of fire goe out but Adam had much holinesse and no sin yet how quickly did he lose it Not but that grace of it self is amissible as well as that of Adams but because of the speciall promise and
restored againe to this image of God is a great and rare blessing few partake of it Holinesse must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee as ever sin and corruption hath soaked into thee Thou didst drink iniquity like water doest thou now as the Hart pant after the water-brooks The resurrection of the soule must be in this life It was sinfull proud but it 's raised an holy humble soule LECTURE XV. EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. HAving handled the Law given to Adam in innocency both absolutely as it is a Law and relatively as a Covenant we now proceed to speak of that Law given by God through the ministery of Moses to the people of Israel which is the great subject in controversie between the Antinomians and us There were indeed Precepts and Lawes given before Moses Hence the Learned speak much of Noah's Precepts The Talmudists say as Cuneus relates that these seven Precepts of Noah did containe such an exact rule of righteousnesse that whosoever did not know them the Israelites were commanded to kill But because these are impertinent to my scope I passe them by And in the handling of this Law of Moses I will use my former method considering the Law absolutely in it selfe and then relatively as a Covenant for as God you have heard hath suffered other errours about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and the Grace of God therefore to break forth that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever by those opinions which would overthrow it The Text upon which most of the matter I have to say shall be grounded are the words now read unto you that are an introduction to the Law containing briefly 1. The nature of the matter delivered which is called Words 1. What meant by words so Deut. 4. ten words hence it 's called the Decalogue Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word meerly as we say one word for so the ten Commandements are more then ten words but it signifieth a concise and briefe sentence by way of command Hence it 's translated sometimes by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. 19. and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 118. 57. so in the New Testament that which is called by Mark 7. 13. the word of God is by Matthew named the commandement of God So Paul also Galat. 5. 14. The whole Law is fulfilled in one word that is one briefe sentence by way of command 2. You have the note of universality All these words to shew 2. Nothing to be added or taken from them that nothing may be added to them or diminished onely here is a difficulty for Deut. 5. where these things are repeated againe by Moses there some things are transposed and some words are changed But this may be answered easily that the Scripture doth frequently use a liberty in changing of words when it repeateth the same thing onely it doth not alter the sense And happily this may be to confute that superstitious opinion of the Jewes who are ready to dreame of miraculous mysteries in every letter 3. There is the efficient cause of this in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. God the Author of this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used in the plurall as some of the Learned observe defectively and is to be supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the excellency of God as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for excellentissima fera By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because saith a learned man they interpreting this for the Grecians and the wisemen amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they would use a word to shew that he who gave the Law was Lord even over all those Now God is here described to be the authour of these Lawes that so the greater authority may be procured to them Hence all Law-givers have endeavoured to perswade the people that they had their Lawes from God 4. You have the manner of delivering them God spake them 4. The manner of delivering it saying which is not to be understood as if God were a body and had organs of speaking but onely that he formed a voice in the aire Now here ariseth a great difficulty because of Acts 7. where he that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angell This maketh the Papists and Grotius goe upon a dangerous foundation That God did not immediately deliver the Law but an Angell who is therefore called God and assumes unto himselfe the name Jehovah because he did represent the person of God But this is confuted by the Learned I shall not preface any further but raise this Doctrine That God delivered a Law to Doctr. the people of Israel by the hand or ministry of Moses I shall God willing handle this point doctrinally in all the theologicall considerations about the Law and First you must still remember that the word Law may be used The word Law is capable of diverse senses and significations in divers senses and before this or that be asserted of it you must cleare in what sense you speak of the Law Not to trouble you againe with the severall acceptions of the word which you must have alwaies in your eye take notice at the present of what a large or restrained signification the word Law is capable of for we may either take the word Law for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the Commandements Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Or else more strictly for that part which we call the Morall Law yet with the preface and promises added to it and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace which is to be proved in due time Or else most strictly for that which is meere 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 and downe 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 selfe 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 kinds of Of the division of Lawes in generall and why the Morall so called lawes 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 shadowes and Christ the fulnesse was come and therefore they were to cease And thus for the Judiciall Lawes because they were given to them as a politick bodie 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 doe 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 doe ex abundanti shew that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law but neither of the Morall Law doe justifie but that benefit we have by Christ onely Therefore the Apostles when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute they doe 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 doe not joyne 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 Argum. 2 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 Jewes and Christians beleeving are looked upon as one people Now that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted as a commandement heretofore delivered is plaine 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 commandements which were given by Moses Thus when he writeth to the Ephesians that were not Jewes cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother because it 's the first Commandement 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 Jewes 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 Doe not commit adultery said also Doe 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 Commandements reach to them I answer because as it is to be shewed in answering the objections against this truth the Jewes 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 the 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 Argum. 3 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 Commandement we cannot then but gather that the Commandements as given by Moses doe binde us For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materia 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 Commandements 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 Commandement of God The fourth Argument from Reason that it is very incongruous Argum. 4 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 perpetuall 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 only there is great reason to be given and thus Austin well answered Porphyrius that objected God was worshipped otherwayes in the old Testament then in the New That
say that the Law was given on Mount Sinai which it was so called from Seneh a bramble bush the bush God appeared in the Mountain being full of bramble bushes representing unto us the terrible and pricking power of the Law Vse To take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses Take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses lest at the same time we reject the whole Old Testament for it is said of the Prophets as well as of the Law that they are till John and then why should they limit the Law to Moses his hands more then others Why should they not say The Law as by David as by Isaiah and Jeremiah doth not bind And if you say they in other places speak of Christ so doth Moses also as our Saviour expresly saith So that I see not how an Antinomian can follow his principle but he must needs cast off the Old Testament except it be in what it is propheticall of Christ LECTURE XVIII MATTH 5. 21 22. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time c. But I say unto you c. THe Law as you have heard may be considered either absolutely as a Rule or relatively as a Covenant We are handling of it in the first consideration and have proved that as it was delivered by Moses it doth belong to us Christians I shall now handle the Perfection of it and labour to shew that Christ hath instituted no new duty which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses And this Question will be very profitable partly against the Antinomians partly the Papists and lastly the Socinians as will appeare in the handling of it That therefore I may the better come to my matter intended take notice in the generall that these words are part of Christs Sermon upon the Mount so that as the Law was first given upon a Mount so also it is explained and interpreted by Christ upon a Mount And in this Sermon is observable first that Christ begins with the end of actions Blessednesse for so Morall Philosophy which is practicall doth also begin Secondly he describes the Subjects who shall be made partakers of this and they are described by severall properties In the next place as some think ver 13. he instructs the Apostles about their peculiar Office Ye are salt not honey as one observeth which is bitter to wounds Ye are light which is also offensive to sore eyes In the next place he instructs the people though some make this only spoken to the Disciples and that first about the substance of the Precepts what duties are to be done against the false interpretations of the Pharisees and Scribes and in the next Chapter he sheweth the end Why we doe the good things God requireth of us and that is for the glory of God which ought to consume all other ends as the Sunne puts out the light of the fire and the first substantiall duty of the Commandements which he instanceth in is this in my text Now before I raise the Doctrine I must answer some Questions as First a What meant by It hath been said by them of old What is meant by those words It hath been said by them of old For here is some difference It is understood by some in the dative case thus It hath been said to them of old and hereby our Saviour would comprehend the Auditors or Hearers that have been heretofore Others doe understand it equivalent unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were in the ablative case and so it seemeth our Interpreters take it and thus others that are Orthodox but truly the opposition that seemeth to be in those words It hath been said to them of old but I say unto you makes me incline to the former way for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case It is also demanded who are meant b Who meant by those of old by those of old to what age that doth extend Some referre it to those times only that were between Esdras and Christ but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then and thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally except Act. 21. 16. referreth to the times of Moses or the Prophets Secondly Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old Those precepts said to be of old are the law and words of Moses be the Law and words of Moses or the additions of corrupt glossers And that most of them are the expresse words of Moses it is plain as Thou shalt not kill or Commit adultery but the doubt lyeth upon two places The first is ver 21. Shall be in danger of judgement Here is say some a two-fold corruption 1. By adding words which are not in the Scripture for they speake peremptorily He shall dye whereas these words seeme to be obscure and doubtfull He shall be brought before the Judges to be tryed whether he be guilty or no. The second corruption they conceive in the sense and that is as if the Pharisees did understand the Commandement only to forbid actuall murder but not murderous thoughts affections or intentions And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth as is to be shewed afterwards but for the former I doe something doubt because though that addition be not exprest in so many words yet there seemeth to be that which is equivalent for Numb 35. 30. there we read the murderer who was to be put to death was to be tryed by witnesses which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause The second particular is that ver 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy where some learned men observe a threefold depravation 1. An implyed one as if a friend were only a neighbour 2. A plain omission for Levit. 19. it s added as thy self which is here omitted 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted but expresly prohibited as Exod. 23. 4. Prov. 25. 21. And this may probably be thought an interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees arguing on the contrary that if we were to love our neighbours then we were to hate our enemies yet there are some who would make the sense of this in the Scripture that is in a limited sense to the Canaanites for they think that because they were commanded to make no Covenant with them but to destroy them and not to pitty them therefore this is as much as to hate them and thereupon they understand the two fore-quoted places that speake of relieving of our enemies to be only meant of enemies that were Jewes their Countrymen and not of strangers And the Jewes thought they might kill any idolaters Therefore Tacitus saith of them there was misericordia in promptu apud suos but contra omnes alios hostile odium yet this command of God to destroy those Nations some understand not
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 hee should rise up and walke Therefore for the clearing of this generall take notice 1. That the word of God as it is read or preached worketh no further The Word real or preached concurres objectively onely to mans conversion then objectively to the conversion of a man if considered in it selfe Take it I say in it selfe not animated by the Spirit of God and the utmost effect it can reach unto is to worke onely as an object upon the Understanding And in this sense it is that the Scripture is compared to a light Now wee 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 Question 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 workes 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 work it could obtaine And this doth plainly appeare in that the word of God doth onely 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 wee call the Gospel Preach the promises of the Gospel a thousand times over they conveigh 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 Therefore in the next place consider this Whatsoever good effects All the benefits conveyed to the soule by the preaching of the Word are efficiently from Gods Spirit or benefit is conveighed 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 other side 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 doe 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 as the Gospel 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 Word without the Spirit cannot convert us and why the Spirit of God cannot convert us is plaine 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 farre 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 it 's called a Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. Yet although this be true we must not fall into that extreme errour of some who therefore deny the necessity of the Scripture and would have us wholly depend upon the Spirit of God saying The Scripture is a creature and we must not give too much to a creature for the Spirit is the efficient and the Word is the subordinate and these two must not be opposed but composed one with the other Now having cleared this generall I bring these Arguments Six Arguments to prove the Law and the preaching of it meanes of Conversion to prove the Law and the preaching of it the meanes of Conversion 1. That which is attributed to the whole Word of God as it is Gods Word ought not to be denyed to any part of it Now this is made the property of the whole Word of God to be the instrument of Conversion 2 Tim. 3. 16. where you have the manifold effects of Gods Word To reprove to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be thorowly furnished to every good work Now mark the universality of this All Scripture whether you take all collectively or distributively it will not invalidate this argument because every part of Scripture hath it's partiall ability and fitnesse for these effects here mentioned Thus Matth. 13. the Word of God in generall is compared to seed sown that bringeth forth fruit see also Heb. 4. 12. 2. The second Argument is taken from those places where the Law is expresly named to be instrumentall in this great worke Not to name that place of Rom. 7. 14. where the Law is called spirituall in this respect as well as in others because it is that which works spiritually in us as Paul was carnall because he worked carnally The places are cleare out of the 119. Psal and Psal 19. 7. The Law of God is perfect converting the soul It is true some understand the converting of the soul
he saith The promise or the Gospel and not the Law is the seed or doctrine of our new birth Assert of grace page 163. Now here are ambiguites as first the promise or Gospel for by this hee seemeth to decide a great Question that whatsoever is a promise in the Scripture that belongs to the Gospel and whatsoever is not that but a command or threatning that belongs to the Law whereas this needeth a great discussion 2. The state of the Question is not about the Gospel or the Law as they are both a doctrine in the Scripture but about the Spirit of God working by one or the other and the not attending to this makes the arguments so confounded 3. Hee saith it 's not the seed of the new birth whereas conversion or regeneration is made the writing of the Law in the heart and Mat. 13. The Word of God in generall is compared to seed sowen that brings forth different fruit as was said before but to let this passe The first instance that is brought cometh from John 17. v. 17. Instance 1 Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is truth Where saith the Authour to sanctifie is to separate any thing from a common use and to consecrate it to God and applied here to man includeth two things 1. Justification by the communication of Christs perfect holinesse whereby the beleever is presented holy and without blame to God 2. An inward renewing and changeing purifying the heart and life by degrees c. pag. 165. I answer 1. The word sanctifie when applied to men doth Answer 1 not onely signifie justification or renovation but setting a part to some peculiar office and charge and there are Learned men who take this to be the meaning of Christs prayer here That as the Priests and Levites who were to enter into the sanctuary did first wash their hands and feet being also cloathed with goodly garments so the Apostles are here prayed for by our Saviour that they may be fitted for their great charge And thus Chrysostome you have a parallel place Jer. 1. 5. Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations And this exposition is confirmed by the manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in truth so they reade it and mention not the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not in some copies so that they take it as an expression opposing the sanctification of the Priests which was by legall types and shadowes But that which doth especially confirme this exposition seemeth to be the two verses following As thou hast sent mee into the world so have I also sent them into the world and for their sakes I sanctifie my selfe that they also may be sanctified through the truth Now sanctification as it comprehends justification and renovation cannot be applied to Christ but it must signifie the segregating and setting apart himselfe for the office of the Mediatour Besides if sanctification doe here include justification how by the Antinomian principle can our Saviour pray for the justification of those who are already justified But in the next place grant that interpretation of sanctification Answer 2 for renovation how doth this prove that the Law is not used instrumentally For our Saviours argument is universall thy word is truth And may not this be affirmed of the Law as well as the Gospel Doth not David speaking of the Law call it pure and cleane that is true having no falshood in it Yea it is thought probable by a learned man that this speech of our Saviours is taken out of Psal 119. 142. where are these words Gerbard expresly Thy Law is the truth Where the word Law cannot exclude the Morall Law though it may include more The next instance is Tit. 2. ver 11 12. For the grace of God that Instance 2 bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodlinesse and wordly lusts c. I answer All this may be granted and nothing makes against Answ this opinion for none deny the Gospel to be the instrument of holinesse But is not here a contradiction The Author before made the Gospel and a Promise all one whereas here it doth command holinesse and godlinesse Is not this with the Papists to make the Gospel a new Law Let him reconcile himself In the next place he doth ambiguously put into the argument the word effectually which is not in the Text for although God doth by his grace in the Gospel effectually move those that are elected to Godlinesse yet Scripture and experience sheweth that where the grace of the Gospel hath appeared thus teaching men yet all are not effectually turned unto holinesse from their worldly lusts Besides the argument may be retorted upon him What word teacheth to deny all ungodlinesse that sanctifieth instructeth but the Law doth so insomuch that the Psalmist saith Psal 119. A young man whose lusts are strongest and temptations most violent may be cleansed by attending thereunto only you must alwayes take notice of the preheminency of the Gospel above the Law for the Law could never have any such good effect upon the heart of man were it not for the gracious Promise by Christ Therefore all the godly men in the Old Testament that received benefit by the Morall Law in studying of it and meditating upon it did depend upon the Gospel or the grace of God in Christ as appeareth by David praying so often to be quickned by Gods Law And here by the way let me take notice of a remarkable passage of Peter Martyr in his Comment on the seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. ver 14. where speaking of the great commendation the Psalmist gives the Law of God that it converts the soul and we may adde those places of inlightning the minde that they clense a mans way c. he maketh this Question Whether the Law doth ever obtain such effects or no And he answereth affirmatively that it doth but then when it s written not in tables but in the hearts and bowels of men so that he conceiveth the Spirit of God doth use the Law instrumentally so that he writeth it in our hearts And this is all we so contend for A third and last instance out of Scripture in answering of Instance 3 which all is answered is from Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by Answ the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith that is of the Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal. 3. 2. Gospel the doctrine of faith In the opening of this text we must take heed of three errours First of those who hold we have faith first before we have the Spirit for how can we come Errour 1 to have faith by our own reason and will This were to make it no work of God The Apostle therefore certainly speakes of the increase of the graces of the Spirit for it is well observed by Peter
eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge that his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seeme plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spirituall held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists 2. Of Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Lawes under the New Testament New Testament hath added more perfect Lawes and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not onely command to pray but gave a prescript forme of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they goe on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of workes and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse error whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when wee speak of the Law and Gospel strictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immediatly to heaven Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediately to heaven therefore say they wee doe not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New find such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith hee saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which hee brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sinne and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places hee brings Jer. 50. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sinne not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jewes which God would bring backe from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel onely for had not the godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sinnes viz Christs bloud as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sinne in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full growne heires What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see lesse sinne in their children while young then when growne up and their childishnes doth more excuse them And although children onely have a rod for their faults yet men growne up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therefore he seeth sinne in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest worke of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master that so they may be prepared for Christ and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel that their lives should be fuller of wisedome and grown graces then the Jewes because they are not under a School-master as children As if one should say to a young man that is taken from the Grammar-schoole and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for hee is not in
then any in that they doe not only by doctrine teach the dis-obligation of the least commandement but of all even of the whole Law This doth appeare true in the first Antinomians in Luthers time of whom Islebius was the captaine he was a School-master and also Professor of Divinity at Islebia It seemeth he was a man like a reed shaken with every wind for first he defended with the Orthodox the Saxon Confession of Faith but afterwards was one of those that compiled the Book called the Interim When Luther admonished him of his errour he promised amendment but for all that secretly scattered his errour which made Luther set forth publikely six solemne disputations against the Antinomians that are to be seen in his workes which argueth the impudency of those that would make Luther on their side By these disputations of Luthers he was convinced and revoked his errour publishing his recantation in print yet when Luther was dead this Euripus did fall into his old errour and publikely defended it Now how justly they might be called Antinomists or as Luther sometimes Nomomachists appeareth by these Propositions which they publikely scattered about in their papers as 1. That the Law is not worthy to be called the word of God Positions of Antinomians 2. To heare the word of God and so to live is a consequence of the Law 3. Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but from the violation of the Son of God in the Gospel 4. We are with all our might to resist those who teach the Gospel is not to be preached but to those whose hearts are first made contrite by the Law These are Propositions of theirs set downe by Luther against which he had his disputations Vol. 1. Thusselberge lib. contra Antin pag. 38. relateth more as 1. The Law doth not shew good works neither is it to be preached that we may doe them 2. The Law is not given to Christians therefore they are not to be reproved by the Law 3. The Preachers under the Gospel are onely to preach the Gospel not the Law because Christ did not say Preach the Law but Gospel to every creature 4. The Legall Sermons of the Prophets doe not at all belong to us 5. To say that the Law is a rule of good works is blasphemy in Divinity Thus you see how directly these oppose the Law and therefore come under our Saviours condemnation in the Text yet at other times the proper state of the Question between the Orthodox and Antinomists seemeth to be not Whether a godly man doe not delight in the Law and doe the workes of the Law but Whether he doth it Lege docente urgente mandante the Law teaching urging and commanding As for the later Antinomians Doctor Taylor and Mr. Burton who preached and wrote against them doe record the same opinions of them Doctor Taylor in his Preface to his Book against them saith One preached that the whole Law since Christs death is wholly abrogated and abolished Another That to teach obedience to the Law is Popery Another That to doe any thing because God commands us or to forbeare any sin because God forbids us is a signe of a morall man and of a dead and unsound Christian Others deliver That the Law is not to be preached and they that doe so are Legall Preachers Master Burton also in his Book against them affirmeth they divided all that made up the body of the Church of England into Hogs or Dogs Hogs were such that despised justification living in their swinish lusts Dogs such who sought to be justified by their works Hee tells of one of their disciples that said Away with this scurvie sanctification and that there is no difference between godly here and in their state of glory but only in sense and apprehension Many other unsavoury assertions are named by those Authors but these may suffice to give a taste of their opinions for it is elegantly spoken by Irenaeus in such falshoods as these are lib. 2. c. 34. adversus Haereses We need not drink up the whole sea to taste whether the water be salt but as a statue that is made of clay yet outwardly so gilded that it seemeth to be gold if any man take a piece of it in his hand and discover what it is doth make every one know what the whole statue is so it is in this case For my part I am acquainted with them no other waies but by their Books which they have written and in those every errour is more warily dressed then in secret There I find that sometimes they yeeld the Law to be a rule of life yea they judge it a calumny to be called Antinomists and if so their adversaries may be better called Antifidians And it cannot be denied but that in some parts of their Books there are wholsome and good passages as in a wood or forest full of shrubs and brambles there may be some violets and primroses yet for all this in the very places where they deny this assertion as theirs they must be forced to acknowledge it The Author of the Assertion of Free-grace who doth expresly touch upon these things and disclaimes the opinion against the Law pag. 4. and pag. 6. yet he affirmeth there such principles from whence this conclusion will necessarily follow For first he makes no reall difference either in Scripture or use of words between the Law reigning and ruling so that if the Law rule a man it reigneth over him Now then they deny that the Law doth reigne over a beleever and so do the Orthodox also therefore they must needs hold that it cannot be a rule unto him And then pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law or rule thereof he addes He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper as if he judged no otherwise of him then of a malefactor of Newgate who would rob and kill if his Gaoler be not with him Againe this is most cleere by what hee saith pag. 31. hee refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law but not the damnatory hee makes these things inseparable and as impossible for the Law to be a Law and have not both these as to take the braines and heart from a man and yet leave him a man still Now then seeing he denieth and so doe all Protestant Writers that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law he must also deny he is under the mandatory because saith he this is inseparable I will in the next place give some Antidotes against this opinion Antidotes against Antinomian errours and the Authors thereof Luther calleth them Hostes Legis Organa Satanae he saith their doctrine is more to be taken heed of then that of the Papists for the Papists they teach a false or imperfect repentance but the Antinomians take all away
from the Church Rivet calls them Furores Antinomorum In the first place awe thy heart with a feare against errours in 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damne thee doctrine as that which may damne thee as well as an open grosse sin Consider that place Galat. 5. 20. where heresies are reckoned among those sins that are very grosse and doe exclude from the Kingdome of Heaven and that hee takes heresies there in a religious consideration is plaine because it 's made to differ from seditions strifes and variances Neither doe thou please thy selfe in that Question What is Heresie Tu Haereticus mihi ego tibi for the Apostle makes it there a manifest work of the flesh and 2 John 10. see how much afraid the people of God ought to be of any evill doctrine and there the Apostle calls evill doctrine evill deeds 2. Look to all the places of Scripture as well as some onely That 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of is a perpetuall fault among the Antinomians they onely pitch upon those places where Christ and his grace is spoken of but not of those Texts where duties are commanded especially those places of Scripture where the Law of God is wonderfully commended for the many reall benefits that come by it where likewise the perpetuity and eternity of it is much celebrated Lex Dei in aeternum manet vel implenda in damnatis vel impleta in beatis said Luther What a curb would it be unto this errour if they would consider with what an holy passion and zeale the Apostle doth deny that hee destroyeth the Law making this very objection to himselfe Doe we then make void the Law God forbid Now can we think that the Apostle who in the third Chapter to the Romans doth so vehemently deny that he destroyeth the Law should so much forget himselfe as in the fourth Chapter to abolish it No ordinary man would fall into such a contradiction 3. Doe not affect applause among people as having found some 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people new nigher way about Christ and grace then others have I have observed this itching humour in the Antinomian Sermons printed where they will call upon their hearers to mark it may be they shall heare that which they have not heard before when the thing is either false or if it be true is no more then ordinarily is taught by others But now when men desire to be applauded in the world they suggest to their inward disciples as if they had found out some new unheard thing and their followers broach it abroad and so they come to be exalted Thus they doe like Psaphon the Libyan It 's reported of him that he kept ten tame birds at home and taught them to sing Magnus deus Psaphon and when he had done so he let these birds flye into the woods and mountaines where all the other birds learned the same song of them which the Libyans perceiving and thinking it no plot but a divine accident decreed to sacrifice to Psaphon and to put him in the number of their gods 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 4. Doe thou diligently study fundamentalls and the principles of Religion As the childe groweth crooked for not being well looked to at first and many errours do now spread themselves because men are not well catechised They build without a foundation It was a grave complaint of Maximus an Ecclesiasticall Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a great matter to have a sound and accurate knowledge in matters of Religion It was a wise speech of Aristides who being demanded by the Emperour to speak to something propounded ex tempore answered Propound to day and I will answer to morrow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not of those who vomit or spit out things suddenly but take time to be diligent and considering 5. When thou doest begin to encline to an opinion that differeth 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion from the learned and godly be not too rash and precipitate in publishing it The Apostle giveth a good rule Rom. 14. Hast thou faith have it to thy selfe He doth not there command a man to equivocate or dissemble and deny a truth but not needlesly to professe it when it will be to the offence of others Cyprian reproving the rashnesse of those Christians that would goe on their owne accord to the Heathen Magistrates professing themselves Christians whereby they were put to death hath a good and elegant speech Confiteri nos magis voluit quà m profiteri he doth confesse that doth it being asked and demanded he doth professe that doth it out of his owne free accord 6. Consider that Antinomianisme is the onely way indeed to overthrow 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace grace and Christ For he sets up free grace and Christ not who names it often in his Book or in the Pulpit but whose heart is inwardly and deeply affected with it Now who will most heartily and experimentally set up Christ and grace of these two i. Who urgeth no use of the Law who takes away the sense or bitternesse of sin who denieth humiliation or he who discovers his defects by the perfect rule of the Law whose soule is inbittered and humbled because of these defects Certainly this later will much more in heart and reall affections set up free grace FINIS THE TABLE A. THe Law abolished as a Covenant not as a Rule Page 204 The Law abrogated to beleevers in six particulars p. 209. 210. 211 Three causes of the abrogation of the ceremoniall Law which agree not to the morall p. 213 Six abuses of the Law p. 16. 17. 18. 19 Conversion and Repentance are our acts as well as the effects of Gods grace p. 97 Whether Adam was mortall before his eating of the forbidden fruit p. 107 Whether Adam in his innocency can be considered in his naturalls or supernaturalls answered in two Positions p. 129 Whether Adam needed Christs help ibid p. 130. Whether God required lesse of Adam then us p. 135. Amorem mercedis a Godly man may have in his obedience though not amorem mercenarium p. 13 What help the Angels had by Christ p. 130 Calvines two Reasons why Angels needed Christs mediation ibid. Some Antecedaneous works upon the heart before grace be bestowed p. 86 Foure limitations concerning those antecedaneous works ibid. The first Antinomian p. 38 Antinomian Differences betwixt the Law and Gospel confuted p. 234. 236 The Antinomian why most inexcusable p. 43 The Antinomian distinction of the Law being abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it a contradiction p. 206 The Antinomian Arguments overthrow the use of the Law to unbeleevers as well as beleevers p. 208 The opinion of the
against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that doe rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will doe to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions and resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty and the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it self to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknowne to the Fathers in the Primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plain thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2 Chron. 19. You execute the judgements of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice and love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefely these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect and benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an Antinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification and that The preaching of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally workes the conversion of men the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our â—ew birth and for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgements of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to worke the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law workes onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministery that whether it be by Law or Gospel he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it The Law with out Christ cannot worke to regeneration not for the Gospel-promise Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things wee preach may be advantagious to our soules so that there never was in the Church of God meere pure Law or meere pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of Conversion I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias agaâ— Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not medle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentully to concurre thereunto onely this cometh by Christ. The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the The Law may be bless'd to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification adoption or consolation so that when a man doth repent and turne 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 lyeth not in this as some doe 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 The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that