with divels we put heavie chaines and fetters that they may doe no hurt so the Lord laid the Law upon the people of Israel to keep them in from impietie The Apostle useth a word shut up as in a dungeon but that is to another sense It was Chrysostomes comparison As a great man suspecting his wife appoints Eunuchs to look to her and keep her so did God being jealous over the Jewes appoint these lawes 2. To curse and condemne and in this respect it poureth all 2. Because it condemnes them its fury upon the ungodly The Law to the godly by Christ is like a Serpent with a sting pulled out but now to the wicked the sting of sinne is the Law and therefore the condition of that man who is thus under it is unspeakably miserable The curse of it is the sore displeasure of God and that for every breach of it and if men that have broken onely mens lawes be yet so much afraid that they hide themselves and keep close when yet no man or Judge can damne them or throw them into hell what cause is there to feare that Law-giver who is able to destroy soule and body Therefore consider thou prophane man are not thy oaths are not thy lusts against Gods Law You had better have all the men in the world your enemy then the Law of God It 's a spirituall enemy and therefore the terrours of it are spirituall as well as the duties Let not your lives be Antinomians no more then opinions Oh that I could confute this Antinomianisme also such a mans life and conversation was against GODS Law but now it 's not 2. To Beleevers it hath this use 1. To excite and quicken them 1. It quickens the godly against sin and corruption against all sinne and corruption for howsoever the Scripture saith Against such there is no law and The Law is not made to the righteous yet because none of the godly are perfectly righteous and there is none but may complaine of his dull love and his faint delight in holy things therefore the Law of God by commanding doth quicken him How short is this of that which God cōmands not that a man is to look for justification by this or to make these in stead of a Christ to him but for other ends Hence Psal 1. and Psal 19. and 119. who can deny that they belong to the godly now as well as heretofore Have not beleevers now crookednesse hypocrisie luke-warmnesse You know not onely the unruly colt that is yet untamed but the horse that is broken hath a bit and bridle also and so not onely the ungodly but even the godly whose hearts have been much broken and tamed doe yet need a bridle Nè Spiritum sessorem excutiant And if men should be so peremptorie as to say they doe not need this it 's not because they doe not need it for they need it most but because they doe not feele it 2. To enlighten and discover unto them daily more and more heart-sinne 2. It discovers sin unto them and soule-sinne This use the Apostle speaketh of Rom. 7. per totum for how should a man come to know the depth of originall sinne all the sinfull motions flowing from it but by the Law and therefore that is observed by Divines the Apostle saith he had not knowne sinne but by the Law intimating thereby that the Law of nature was so obliterated and darkened that it could not shew a man the least part of his wickednesse Seneca who had more light then others yet he saith Erras si tecum vitia nasci putas supervenerunt ingesta sunt And so Pelagius his assertion was that tam sine vitio quà m sine virtute nascimur And you see all Popery to this day holds those motions of heart not consented to to be no sins but necessary conditions arising from our constitution and such as Adam had in innocency Therefore the people of God see and are humbled for that wickednesse which others take no notice of This will satisfie man but not Gods Law 3. To drive them out of all their owne power and righteousnesse 3. It makes them disclaim all their owne righteousness And this is another good consequence for when they see all to come short of the Law that the earth is not more distant from heaven then they from that righteousnesse this makes them to goe out of all their prayers and all their duties as you see Paul Rom. 7. he consented to the Law and he delighted in it but he could not reach to the righteousnesse of it and therefore crieth out Oh wretched man that I am How apt are the holiest to be proud and secure as David and Peter even as the wormes and wasps eat the sweetest apples and fruit but this will keep thee low How absurd then are they that say The preaching of the Law is to make men trust in themselves and to adhere to their owne righteousnesse for there is no such way to see a mans beggery and guilt as by shewing the strictnesse of the Law For what makes a Papist so selfe-confident that his hope is partly in grace and partly in merits but because they hold they are able to keep the Law God forbid saith a Papist that we should enjoy heaven as of meere almes to us no we have it by conquest Whence is all this but because they give not the Law its due 4. Hereby to quicken them to an higher price and esteem of Christ 4. It makes them set an higher value of Christ and his benefits and the benefits by him So Paul in that great agony of his striving with his corruption being like a living man tyed to a dead carkasse his living faith to dead unbeliefe his humility to loathsome pride see what a conclusion he makes I thank God through Jesus Christ. It 's true many times the people of God out of the sense of their sinne are driven off from Christ but this is not the Scriptures direction That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt peace in Christ for thy terrour And in this consideration it is that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law and about sinne All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel so as if the discovering of the one did quite drive from the other And this is the reason why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ taking up every crumb that falls from his table they are Christs to themselves and self-saviours I deny not but the preaching of Christ and about grace may also make us prize grace and Christ but such is our corruption that all is little enough Let me adde these cautions 1. It 's of great consequence in what sense we use the word Law 1. The Law according to the use of the word in the Scripture is not onely a
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
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
sense the Law and Gospel doe oppose and thwart one another And this matter I undertake because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered It is an errour saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit cap. 9. in those who doe never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousnesse and saith he this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary meaning by the Law that rule of life whereby God doth require of us that which is his own giving us no ground of hope unlesse in every respect we keep the Law but saith he quum de totâ lege agitur when he speakes of the Law more largely taken he makes them to differ only in respect of clearer manifestation or as Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant they differ not essentially but as we say the old and new Moon Therefore before I come to shew the exact opposition take The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect notice of two things as a foundation first that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old Testament and the New and then they differ only gradually for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God though Socinians deny it although indeed in respect of the Gospel it may comparatively be said no spirit and no grace as when it is said The holy Ghost was not yet given because it was not so plentifully given Or secondly the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law only this is the reason why we cannot say The Spirit of God or grace or life is by the Law because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes it is not of the Law but of the grace of God or the Gospel Therefore whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together we must be sure to make the parallel equall and to take them so oppositely that we may not give the one more advantage or lesse then the nature of it doth crave and desire In the second place therefore in this controversie still remember The different use of the word Law carefully to be observed to carry along with you the different use of the word Law as to this point for if you take Law strictly and yet make it a Covenant of grace you confound the righteousnesse of works and of faith together as the Papists doe but if largely then there may be an happy reconciliation For the better opening of this consider that as the word What meant by Law taken largely and what strictly Law so the word Gospel may be taken largely or strictly We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word or whether it be used any where of a sorrowfull message as well as glad newes as some say in two places it is used 1 Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers Non infrequens esse specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi It is enough to our purpose that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely and sometimes more strictly when it 's taken largely it signifieth the whole doctrine that the Apostles were to preach Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature and so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel i. e. the doctrine and preaching of Christ Or else it is taken most strictly as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings c. In which strict sense it 's called the Gospel of peace and of the grace of God So that as you see the word Law is taken differently largely and strictly thus also is the word Gospel Now it 's a great dispute Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel or no I finde the Lutherans Antinomians and Calvinists to speake differently but of that when we take the Law and Gospel in their most strict sense Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument that the Protestants doe deny the necessity of good works because they hold that the Gospel hath no precepts or threatnings in it lib. 4. de Justif cap. 2. And he urgeth against them that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is said to be revealed from heaven in the Gospel but as is to be shewed he there doth mistake the state of the controversie taking the word Gospel in a larger sense then they intended Thus on the other side Islebius the father of the Antinomians he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue but from the Gospel and that to preserve the purity of doctrine we ought to resist all those who teach the Gospel must not be preached but to those who were made contrite by the Law whereas the right unfolding of the word Gospel would make up quickly those breaches The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception I shall first shew the opposition between the Law and Gospel taken in their large sense and then in the limited sense And this is worth the while because this is the foundation of all our comfort if rightly understood Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New Testament or Covenant wherein the Learned speake very differently and as to my apprehension much confusedly I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New which Austin Chemnitius and others urge because it presseth the old man and condemneth that whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new I rather take it to be so called because the old was to cease and vanish away being before the other in time Now in my method I will lay down the false differences and then name the true The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians False differences between the Law and the Gospel who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections And for this they are very resolute granting indeed that 1. Of Anabaptists and Socinians affirming That they under the Law in the Old Testament enjoyed only temporall blessings Christ and eternall things were promised in the Old Testament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament whereupon they say that grace and salvation was not till Christ came And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Testament they take rigidly and universally as if there had been no
no sin in beleevers This is a dangerous position and although they have Similies to illustrate and distinctions to qualifie it yet when I speak of imputed righteousnesse there will be the proper place to shew the dangerous falshood of them 3. You must in the discourse you shall heare concerning the necessity of good works carefully distinguish between these two Propositions Good workes are necessary to beleevers to justified persons or to those that shall be saved and this Good workes are necessary to justification and salvation Howsoever this later is true in some sense yet because the words carry as if holinesse had some effect immediately upon our justification and salvation therefore I do wholly assent to those learned men that think in these two cases we should not use such a Proposition 1. When we deale with adversaries especially Papists in disputation for then we ought to speak exactly Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary lest they should seem to yeeld to Nestorius who denied her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people for what common hearer is there that upon such a speech doth not conceive that they are so necessary as that they immediately work our justification The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified the other as conditions effecting justification 4. These good works ought to be done or are necessary upon Good works are necessary these grounds 1. They are the fruit and end of Christs death Titus 1. Because they are the fruit of Christs death 2. 14. It 's a full place The Apostle there sheweth that the whole fruit and benefit of Christs redemption is lost by those that live not holily There are two things in our sins 1. The guilt and that Christ doth redeem us from 2. The filth and that he doth purifie from If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts hee will purifie thee from the noisomenesse of them And mark a two-fold end of this purification that we may be a peculiar people This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome saith he sought for among humane authours and could not find it therefore some think the Seventy feigned this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It answers to the Hebrew word Begullah and signifieth that which is precious and excellent got also with much labour so that this holinesse this repentance of thine it cost Christ deare And the other effect is zealous of good workes The Greek Fathers observe the Apostle doth not say followers but zealous that doth imply great alacrity and affection And lest men should think we should onely preach of Christ and grace These things speake saith he and exhort And Calvine thinketh the last words Let no man despise thee spoken to the people they are for the most part of delicate eares and cannot abide plaine words of mortification 2. There is some kind of analogicall relation between them and 2. Because in respect of evill workes there is some Analogy between heaven and them heaven comparatively with evill works So those places where it 's said If wee confesse our sins he is not onely faithfull but also just to forgive us our iniquities So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crowne of righteousnesse which the righteous Judge c. These words doe not imply any condignity or efficiency in the good things wee doe but an ordinability of them to eternall life so that evill and wicked workes they cannot be ordained to everlasting life but these may Hence some Divines say That though godlinesse be not meritorious nor causall of salvation yet it may be a motive as they instance If a King should give great preferment to one that should salute him in a morning this salutation were neither meritorious nor causall of that preferment but a meer motive arising from the good pleasure of the King And thus much they thinke that particle for I was an hungry doth imply So that God having appointed holinesse the way and salvation the end hence there ariseth a relation between one and the other 3. There is a promise made to them 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godlinesse hath 3. Because a promise is made unto them the promises as it s in the Originall because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God so that to every godly action thou doest there is a promise of eternall life And hereby though God be not a debtor to thee yet he is to himselfe and to his owne faithfullnesse Reddis debita nulli debens cryed Austine so that the godly may say Oh Lord it was free for thee before thou hadst promised whether thou wouldst give me heaven or no but now the word is out of thy mouth not but that wee deserve the contrary onely the Lord is faithfull therefore saith David I will mention thy righteousnesse i. e. faithfulnesse onely and then marke what the Apostle saith of this speech This is a faithfull saying and worthy of all acceptation This made them labour and suffer shame If you aske How then is not the Gospel a covenant of workes That in briefe shall be answered afterwards 4. They are testimonies whereby our election is made sure 2 Pet. 4. Because testimonies assuring us of our election 1. ver 10. Make your calling and election sure The Vulgar Translator interprets those words per bona opera and complaineth of Luther as putting this out of the Text because it made against him but it 's no part of Scripture Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very diligent and the rather which is spoken ex abundanti to make their calling and election sure What God doth in time or what he hath decreed from eternity to us in love to make sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Estius and other Papists strive for firme and not sure and so indeed the word is sometimes used but here the Apostle speaketh not of what it is in it selfe but what it is to us and the certainty thereof And observe the Apostles motives for making our election sure 1. Ye shall never faile the word is used sometimes of grievous and sometimes of lesser sins but here hee meaneth such a failing that a man shall not recover again 2. An entrance shall be abundantly ministred into heaven It 's true these are not testimonies without the Spirit of God 5. They are a condition without which a man cannot be saved So 5. Because we cannot be saved without them that although a man cannot by the presence of them gather a cause of his salvation yet by the absence of them he may conclude his damnation so that it is an inexcusable speech of the Antinomian Good works doe not profit us nor bad hinder us thus Islebius Now the Scripture how full is it to the contrary Rom. 8. 13. If yee live after
true that the text is here corrupt and Whether the Psalmists meaning be not perverted For the first in the Hebrew it's there line but the Apostle following the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they had read Colam for Cavam But the Answer is that the Septuagint regarded the sense and the Psalmist having spoken before of the words or speech of heaven they therefore interpret according to that sense And by line is meant the Structure and exact composing of all these things which declareth the admirable wisdome of the Maker As for the later it is indeed generally taken as if the Apostle did speak this of the Apostles preaching the Gospel which the Psalmist did of the heavens insomuch that the Lutherans interpret all the former part of the Psalme allegorically Others think the Apostle alledgeth that place allusively not by way of argument as in that place of the Epistle to the Corinthians where the Apostle applyeth the speech about Manna to matter of liberality But Jansenius and Vasquez among the Papists and Beza with others among the orthodox think the Apostle keepeth to the literall meaning of the Psalmist as if this should be the Apostles meaning Israel hath heard for God made known himselfe even to the very Heathens by the creatures how much more to the Jewes by the Prophets Which way soever you take it it proveth that God hath a schoole of Nature by his creatures as well as a schoole of Grace by his Ministers The last proofe is from John 1. He is the true light which enlightneth every man coming into the world for so we think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth referre to man not light though Socinus and Grotius plead much for it Some indeed understand this of the light of Grace but it will be more universally and necessarily true of the light of Reason which is in infants radically though not actually I shall not here relate what unsound Positions an Antinomian Authour hath in a manuscript Sermon upon this place because it is not pertinent So then there is an implanted sense and feeling of a deity which made Tertullian say O anima naturaliter Christiana and Cyprian Summa est delicti nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non potes If you object that the Scripture speaks of the Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be understood of a distinct and obedient knowledge of him And as for some Atheists spoken of that have expressedly professed it what they did was partly in derision of the many gods as Socrates and another who needing a fire threw a statue of Hercules into the fire saying Age Hercules XIII laborem subiturus adesto obsonium nobis cocturus Besides they did this with their tongue more then their heart as appeareth by Diagoras who when he had made a famous oration against a deity the people came applauding him and said he had almost perswaded them but only they thought that if any were God he was for his eloquence sake and then this wretch like Herod was content to be thought a god The second Question is Whether the mystery of the Trinity and The mysterie of the Trinitie and the Incarnation of Christ cannot be found out by the light of Nature of the Incarnation of Christ can be found out as a truth by the light of Nature And here certainly we must answer negatively for the Apostle 2 Corinth 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospell saith It hath not entered into the heart of a man to conceive of them which is to be understood not onely of the blessed joy and peace of those truths but also as they are truths so that all these things are of meere supernaturall revelation Hence we reade that when by reason of the Arrians there was an hot dispute about these mysteries there was a voice heard from heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fall of the wise men I doe acknowledge that Austin and others have sought the foot-steps or representations of the Trinity in the creatures yea Nierembergius a Jesuit de origine sacrae Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 3. doth hold that God did intend by the workes of creation to declare the mysteries of graces as by those artificiall things of the Ark Tabernacle and Temple he intended spirituall mysteries but this is false But then they did first know and beleeve this doctrine by Scripture and then afterwards goe to represent it Yet it must be confessed that all these Similies have scarce one foot much lesse foure to run on The Schoole-men speak of the three things in every creature Esse Posse Operari But especially that is taken up about the soule when it understandeth or knoweth and when it loveth and the Son of God is represented by that Verbum mentis and the holy Ghost by Amor. Now here is a mistake for Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1. by John imitating the Chaldee not in respect of any such scholasticall sense but because he doth reveale and make knowne the will of God to us so the union of the humane nature and the divine in one person though learned men give many examples yet none come up to the full resemblance And indeed if you could give the like instance it were not wonderfull or singular We conclude then that the Scriptures are the onely ladder whereby we climb up to these things and our understandings are of such a little stature that we must climb up into the tree of life the Scriptures to see Jesus The light of Nature insufficient for salvation The third Question concerning this naturall light is Whether it be sufficient for salvation For there are some that hold If any man of whatsoever Nation he be worship God according to the light of Nature and so serve him he may be saved Hence they have coined a distinction of a three-fold piety Judaica Christiana and Ethnica Therefore say they What Moses was to the Jewes and Christ to the Christians the same is Philosophy or the knowledge of God by nature to Heathens But this opinion is derogatory to the Lord Christ for onely by faith in his Name can we be saved as the Scripture speaketh And certainely if the Apostle argued that Christ died in vaine if works were joyned to him how much more if he be totally excluded It is true it seemeth a very hard thing to mans reason that the greater part of the world being Pagans and Heathens with all their infants should be excluded from heaven Hence because Vedelius a learned man did make it an aggravation of Gods grace to him to chuse and call him when so many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned this speech as being full of horridnesse a scoffing Remonstrant takes and sets it forth odiously in the Frontispiece of his Book But though our Reason is offended yet we must judge according to the way of the Scripture which makes Christ the onely way for salvation If
naturall necessity Life must be extended as far as death now the death threatned was not only a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God 2. Because his posterity become guilty of his sin and obnoxious to his punishment dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his owne person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply A Covenant implies Gods decree will or promise to concerning his creatures whether rationall or irrationall first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deale very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed to an heire with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meere Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his definition of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as Tully to maintaine their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implieth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle doth in reference to Christs death but more largely for Gods gracious ordering of such mercies and spirituall benefits to us by the death of Christ for the Covenant of grace implyeth Christs death it being a Covenant of reconciliation Now because there is in the Covenant of grace something of a Covenant and something of a Testament also hence some doe call it a Testament-Covenant because it is of a mixt nature The rise of the Hebrew word Berith is variously conjectured some make it to come from a word that signifieth to eate because of the sacrifices and feasts that were at a Covenant some from a word that signifieth to cut because then in the striking of the Covenant there was a division of the beast that was killed some from the word that signifieth to create as also to order and dispose things by way of likenesse some from a word that signifieth to be pure and to choose either because it 's by agreement or because in Covenants they ought to deale without all fraud but I stand not upon these things By this which hath been said it may appeare that the Covenant God made with Adam though it be truly called a Covenant yet no waies a Testament because there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam Now to all this that hath been said there must this caution be added That a Covenant is not so properly said to be with God and man as between man and man for among them consent is requisite and doth mutually concurre to make the Covenant valid but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this consent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man Therefore if you regard the use of the word and the application of it it doth denote Gods decree and will or promise about things whether about the irrationall creatures or the reasonable Such was Gods Covenant not to drowne the world and Gods Covenant with day and night yea Gods Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumcise his childe And thus it was with Adam Gods Covenant did not depend properly upon his consent and acceptation for he was bound to doe as God commanded whether hee would agree or no. That Adams consent was not necessary to make the Covenant valid doth appeare in that he was bound to accept what God did require And it 's indeed disputed Whether Adam did so much as know and if he did not know he could not consent that God did indent with him as a publike person and so all his
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
Moses with that of our Saviours is very vainly and unwarrantably brought for fasting in Lent 6. Moses his zeale against this their idolatry and breaking of the 6. Moses his breaking of the Tables intimates that justification is not to be had by them Tables When Moses came down he saw how the people had transgressed the Law of God which so moved him that in his zeale he brake the Tables that were first made This certainly was by the immediate ordering of God to signifie that this could not be a way of justification for them and indeed to hold that the Law can justifie is so great an errour that we are all Antinomians in this sence One hath said that the Law was like the tree of knowledge of good and evill but the Gospel that is like the tree of life yet this must be rightly understood for God useth the Law as he doth his whole Word to beget and increase the life of grace in us only this life is not that which can justifie us and in this effect of the Law to increase life David doth often commend it Now some have attributed this to Moses as a sin accounting Moses his zeale in breaking the Tables vindicated from rashnesse and sinfull perturbation of minde it his impatiency and rashnesse to break the Tables They acknowledge it to be a good zeale for the maine onely they think here was some strange fire as well as the fire of the Sanctuary But although this excandescency of Moses was sudden yet I see not why it should be attributed as rashnesse in him to break the Tables for he had brought those Tables as a signe of their Covenant stricken with God but now they having broken it by their Idolatry it was very just to have the Tables broken in the eyes of the people that so they might see how God was alienated from them so that we think he did it not with any sinfull perturbation of mind but an holy zeale God hereby also ordering that they should understand God would enter into a new Covenant with them which made Austin cry out O ira prophetica animus non perturbatus sed illuminatus 7. Moses his petition unto God for his presence and the manifestation 7. Gods manifestation of his glory unto Moses makes for his honour of Gods glory unto him with Gods answer Howsoever this doth not immediately concerne the promulgation of the Law yet because it 's inserted before the reparation of the Tables againe and maketh for the honour which God put upon Moses while he was settling the lawes of Israel we will give a touch at it Cap. 33. ver 12. Moses desireth Gods presence to be with him in conducting of the people of Israel and as a signe whereby he might be confirmed of his presence he desireth to see Gods glory It is hard to say what was Moses his petition in this thing I cannot be of their mind who make this onely a vision and nothing really acted nor of theirs who think that Moses desired to see the essence of God I will not dispute that Question Whether the bodily eyes of a man may be lifted up to that perfection as to see God who is a spirit Nor can I think that they attaine to the truth who think by the glory of God to be meant the reasons and grounds of Gods mercies and in particular his providence to the Israelites and by the back-parts which Moses was allowed to see the effects themselves of his mercy and providence as if God intended to shew Moses his wonderfull effects but not the reasons of them Nor lastly That Moses desired to see the humanity of Christ in glory like that vision of transfiguration therefore I judge this most literall that although it 's said ver 11. that Moses spake with God face to face which argueth familiarity yet for all that even then God was clothed as it were in a cloud interposing it selfe Now Moses he desireth that God would manifest himselfe in a more sensible visible and glorious way of an outward shape even as before he would have knowne Gods Name Now God in part answereth him and in part denieth him shewing such a glorious object that yet he was not able to see but where the light was lesse intense 8. The reparation of the Tables againe And here is some difference 8. Though the writing of the second Tables was Gods work yet the forming and polishing them was the work of Moses between the former and the later Tables The former God provided both for the shape and the writing as you heard but here the forming or polishing of the Table is Moses his work and the writing is Gods The first is said expresly Exod. 34. 1. Go hew thee two Tables of stone like the former and I will write upon these Tables Here is the second expresly So Deut. 10. 1 2 3. so that the writing of the Law on the second Tables was as immediately Gods work as the former but not the polishing or preparing of the Tables Onely there is one place of Scripture which troubleth the Learned much that seemeth to oppose this and to make the writing upon the second Table to be immediately the act of Moses and mediately onely of God because he commanded and directed Moses to doe so The place that seemeth to oppose this is Exod. 34. 27 28. I confesse if we look into the coherence of these Texts we shall find some things difficult But two things will help to cleare it first that the things which Moses did write were not the ten Commandements but the severall precepts that were by way of explication and then the second thing is that whereas the 28. verse seemeth to speak of the same subject Moses yet the two former predicates are to be attributed to him viz. his staying with God forty dayes and nights and his neither eating nor drinking all that while Then the third predicate is to be given to God viz. writing upon the ten Commandements for it 's ordinary with the Hebrewes to referre the relative to some remote subject and not the neerest and this may untye that knot There is this remarkable that though the former Tables were broken yet now God enters into a Covenant of grace with them as appeareth by proclaiming himselfe long-suffering and gracious but yet God causeth the ten Commandements to be written againe for them implying that these may very well stand with a Covenant of grace which opposeth the Antinomian 9. The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses This is a considerable 9. The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses argues the administration of the Law to be glorious passage for the Apostle speaking of this 2 Cor. 3. doth acknowledge the ministration of the Law to have a great deale of glory but yet such as was to vanish Where by the way take notice against the Antinomian that the Apostle doth not there speak of the Law
obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses bind because of Moses so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament is binding so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Though indeed this be denyed by all those that are for the negative Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the observation therof was intended for the Church of God perpetually when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Lawes not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jewes So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes The Morall Law is binding 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it 1. In regard of the matter of it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and doe say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians doe professe they doe not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also doe not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speake not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there
here commanded Insomuch that kingdomes are more the kingdomes of the world then of Christ and the lawes and practises of Common-wealths are such as sute more with humane states then with the lawes of Christ But I come to the particulars And first whereas it 's granted to be lawfull by the Law of Swearing neither absolutely unlawfull not universally forbidden by our Saviour with reasons why Moses to swear now say some under the Gospel it 's made absolutely unlawfull under any pretence whatsoever and say they here our Saviour forbids it absolutely Swear not at all and James following this of our Saviour doth the like Hence their opinion is that it is not only unlawfull to swear falsely and vainly but at all in any respect And this say they is a perfection required of Christians above those of the Law Nor is it any wonder that men of late have doubted of this seeing the Learned shew that some of the Fathers of old have thought it absolutely unlawfull for a Christian to sweare In Eusebius one Basilides a Christian being commanded to swear replyed It was not lawfull for him because he was a Christian And Hierome saith that to sweare was permitted to the Jewes or infants as to offer sacrifices unto God yet I cannot see but that they did swear also although sometimes they speake as if they thought there were an absolute prohibition of it Yet Athanasius made a solemne oath to purge himselfe when accused to the Emperour and Tertullian saith though the Christians refused to swear per genium Principis because that they conceived it a devill yet they did swear per salutem principis Some again have thought that it is lawfull to sweare but then only in religious things or in things that doe concern the safety of the Publique but that it is not lawfull to sweare in any thing of our own or about any money matter and Basil doth object to the Christians of his time the Example of one Clinius a Pythagorean who being fined a great summe of money and might have escaped it by an oath yet chose rather to undergoe that dammage then to swear Some have thought it better if in humane affaires where promissory oaths use to be there were only a naked promise yet with as great a punishment upon the breaking of it as if it were perjury because men are for the most part more awed with fear of punishment then breaking an oath But whatsoever the thoughts of men may be about limiting of swearing yet it is lawfull in some cases to swear neither is our Saviour so to be understood as universally forbidding First because then he would have destroyed the Law which yet he denyeth that he doth for Deut. 6. to swear by God is a command not indeed of a thing absolutely in it self but occasionally as opportunity shall be Therefore the word that signifieth To sweare in the Heb. is in the passive sense implying that we are not voluntarily to choose to doe so but when necessity requireth it Secondly again Christ doth not absolutely prohibit it because the use and end of an oath is perpetuall which is to end controversies Heb. 6. Therefore Aquinas saith well that what first principles are in speculatives to determine all conclusions the same an oath is in practicalls to end controversies Thirdly and lastly we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle so that our Saviour doth not altogether forbid it but he reproveth the Pharisees corrupt glosses Corrupt glosses of the Pharisees touching Swearing reproved which were 1. To think that if a man did not name God in his oath though it were by other creatures it was not perjury if he did falsifie that oath And how many come neer this who think if they sweare by the creatures so that God is not named it 's not such an hainous thing The second corrupt interpretation was They thought that Gods Name was not polluted if so be they intended to make good their promise though they did use the Name of God in their oathes about unnecessary and vain matters Now this our Saviour forbids by his affirmative Direction Let your yea be yea and nay nay whatsoever is more then this is of sinne He speakes there of our ordinary and familiar discourse as private persons not concerning a publike consideration even as afterwards when he mentioneth the duty of not resisting evil he forbids private revenge and not publique justice Although some understand this of our Saviours and that of James not of assertory oaths for it 's spoken by our Saviour in addition unto that Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vowes but of promissory oaths and so the meaning is Although thou intend to performe or do such a thing yet doe not sweare because things are so uncertain and many things may fall out and this is very probable Only if you understand it the former way you must not take it so as if an oath were such a lawfull thing as that it is propter se appetendum but only as physick is which is sometimes necessary for another thing Thus therefore having cleared that our Saviour intendeth no higher thing then that was lawfull before give me leave to reprove the common practise among men who say they are Christians about swearing If you observe men in their discourse in their trading do they carry themselves so as if Christ had said Sweare not at all and not rather as if he said Sweare alwayes and altogether Oh therefore that this common customary way of swearing which doth so directly oppose Christ were wholly laid aside The very Heathens will condemne us herein and among the Heathens ex animi sui sententiâ was in stead of an oath It seemeth this custome of swearing in discourse hath been of old for Chrysostome and Austin are very vehement against it in their Sermons Now let us proceed There are some who from those words of our Saviour spoken ver 38 39 40 41. doe gather that now under the Gospel it 's not lawfull 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatsoever 2. That it 's not lawfull to warre 3. Not to goe to law in any case 4. Not to seek to a Magistrate for the defence of our selves Therefore in these opinions they thinke they hold forth much of Christian meeknesse and patience but before we come to the particulars let us consider in what sense it 's said An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth This kinde of In what sense the words An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth are to be taken Law was an ancient one among other Nations Aristotle cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we reade of a double retaliation one Pythagoricall which was wicked and ungodly holding that if a man did thieve from one the same might thieve from him again The other Mosaicall which was good and had justice in it Only the Question is Whether this be literally
to be as much as the reviving of it as if the soul were ready to swoune away through the troubles thereof but then the Law doth revive them again and comfort them and according to this sense they take Law largely as comprehending the Gospel but it seemeth hard to expound that phrase in such a manner That therefore which the Antinomian doth object against this place is that the Hebrew word doth signifie largely any doctrine and so may comprehend the whole Word of God But this is easily answered First the same Hebrew word is commonly used for the Law when it is strictly taken and therefore this maketh more against them that the word Law in the Hebrew notion doth not signifie such a commanding terrifying and damning thing but rather that which doth instruct and informe But in the next place grant that the Word hath such an extensive and comprehensive sense yet it doth not exclude the Morall Law but doth alwayes include Can any man think when David commends the Law of God that he meaneth all the Word of God but the Morall Law when indeed that was the greatest part of it at that time 3. That opinion which would make Christ not take an instrumentall way for the conversion of men in his first Sermon wherein he was very large that must not be asserted but to hold that the preaching of the Law is not a Medium to conversion must needs be to say that Christ did not take the neerest way to convert his hearers for if you consider that Sermon it 's principally spent in the opening of the Morall Law and pressing the duties thereof and how can we think but that our Saviour judged this profitable and soul-saving matter Nor can I see why it should be said to be only the occasion and not medium if powerfully set home by Gods Spirit 4. If the Law of God have that objectively in it that may work exceedingly upon the heart when set home by Gods Spirit then it may be used instrumentally as well as the Gospel but it hath objectively such a nature in it which doth appeare by Davids approving and delighting in Gods Law by Paul Rom. 7. who delighted in the Law of God When therefore a Minister setteth forth the lovely purity and excellency of the matter of the Law how it resembleth the nature of God why may not the Spirit of God in the exercise hereof raise up the heart and affections to be more and more in love with it If the Heathen said of Vertue that if it could be seen with corporall eyes the beauty thereof would ravish men how much more may this be true of the purity and holinesse of the Law 5. If the Law of God may be blessed after a man is converted to the increase of his grace and holinesse why not then to the first beginning of it That it is for the increase of godlinesse in persons already regenerated is apparent by experience And it is hard to thinke that a Minister having opened any Morall duty of the Law may not pray to God for his Spirit to cloath that word with power and efficacy to change the hearts of hearers 6. If the Ceremoniall Law the Sacraments and Sacrifices were blessed by Gods Spirit while they were commanded to be used for the strengthening and increase of grace notwithstanding the deadly nature of them now then the Morall Law may also be blessed by God for spirituall effects seeing it standeth still in force Let the Vse then of this be by way of admonition that in Vse stead of disputing about or against the Law that we would pray Pray for the benefit of the Law in our souls to have the savoury benefit and fruit of it in our souls Urge God with that Promise of writing his Law in our heart Be thou so farre from being an Antinomian that thou hast thy heart and life full of this holy Law of God Not that the matter of the Law can be the ground of thy Justification but yet it is thy Sanctification What is Regeneration but the writing of the Morall Law in thy heart This is that image of God which Adam was created in Oh therefore that we could see more of this holy Law in the hearts and lives of men that the Law of God might be in mens mindes inlightning them in their wils and affections inflaming and kindling of them LECTURE XXI ROM 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid But we rather establish the Law I Shall in the next place discusse that famous Question about the abrogating of the Morall Law only I must answer to some Objections that are made against the former position That the Law may be used by God in the preaching of it to mans Conversion in the sense explained which if not attended unto may make the assertion seeme harsh and incredible But before I answer the Objections let us consider a great mistake of the Antinomian author Assert of grace pag. 171. where he makes the very ground why they are charged with Antinomianisme to be because they doe not hold the Law to be used by God instrumentally for the conversion of men Certainly this is a great mistake for there are many learned men who hold the work of the Law by the power of Gods Spirit to be no more then preparatory yet for all that doe peremptorily maintaine the use and the obligation of the Law in respect of beleevers Therefore they are not in this respect condemned for that errour Another consideration that I would propound is this * Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ That the work of conversion is not wrought totally in a man without the Gospel for as I told you now in the preaching of the Word there is not meere Law nor meere Gospel but they are to be composed and to be made helpfull to each other and also whatsoever benefit or effect we get in the hearing preaching or meditating upon the Law of God it is to be attributed unto the Covenant of grace in Christ And therefore all these places which attribute conversion and holinesse to the Gospel do not at all make against my Assertion for the Question is not Whether by the power of the Law we come to obey the Law but Whether grace may not use the Precepts or Law preached for the inflaming of our affections so in love with the things commanded that we are thereby made more holy And thus I interpret those Authors that deny the Law to be instrumentall to holinesse that is not animated by Gods Spirit or separated from it I come therefore to consider of those places which are brought against this truth delivered I shall not take all because one answer may serve for many they being built upon the same ground And first the state and Question is obscurely propounded by him for thus
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
shadow forth and prefigure a Christ so it was to cease Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together as agreeing in one generall thing which is to foretell of Christ and to typifie him And this will be clearer if you compare Matth. 11. 13. with this of Luke where it is thus set down All the prophets and the Law prophesied unto John whereby it is cleare that he speakes of the typicall part of the Law yet not so as if the Ceremonies were then immediately to cease only from that time they began to vanish The next place of Scripture is that famous instance so much vexed in this controversie Rom. 6. 15. For you are not under the Law but under grace Now to open this consider these things 1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law and what The Apostle argueth against the Law in comparison of Christ was the proper state of the Question in those dayes And that appeareth Act. 15. where you have a relation made of some beleeving Jewes that were of the sect of the Pharisees who pressed the necessity of Circumcision and so would joyn the ministery of Moses and Christ together Now it seemeth though the Apostles in this Councell had condemned that opinion yet there were many that would still revive this errour and therefore the Apostle in this Epistle to the Romans and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this false doctrine and labour much against it Stapleton and other papists they think that the controversie was only about the Ceremoniall Law and this they doe to maintain their justification by the works of the Law when wrought by grace But though it must be granted that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occasion of that great difference and the most principall thing in question yet the Apostle to set forth the fulnesse of grace and Christ doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Morall Law for the Jewes did generally think that the knowledge and observation of the Morall Law without Christ was enough for their peace and comfort And if they could perswade themselves that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God though they lived in grosse disobedience to the Morall Law as Isai 1. alibi it many times appeareth they did how much more when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law must they needs be secure of their favour with God And in this sense it is that the Apostle speakes seemingly derogatory to the Law because they took it without Christ Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements when yet we know they were signes of an Evangelicall grace 2. That the Apostle useth the word Law in divers senses which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point Now in most of those places where the Law seemeth to be abolished it is taken in one of these two senses Either first synecdochically The word Law taken in a two-fold sense the Law put for part of the Law to wit for that part which actually condemneth and accuseth as when the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation whereas we may say A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription as well as against a thing by accusation Or secondly the word Law is put for the ministery of Moses which dispensation was farre inferiour unto the ministery of the Gospel And in this sense the Apostle doth much use it in the Epistle to the Galathians and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes So that here is a continuall mistake when the Antinomians heap place upon place which seeme to abolish the Law and doe not first declare what Law and in what sense those places are to be expounded 3. Consider these Phrases Of the Law Without the Law These Phrases Of the Law Without the Law Vnder the Law and In the Law explained Vnder the Law and In the Law Without the Law is two wayes First he is without the Law that is without the knowledge and understanding of it Thus the Gentiles are without the Law And secondly Without the Law that is without the sense and experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law and thus Paul Rom. 7. said when the Law came he died Now the godly though they are denied to be under the Law yet they are not said to be without the Law for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it both in respect of knowledge and observation of it then might beleevers be said to be without the Law And to this Without the Law is opposed In the Law Rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vulgar In legem Beza Cum lege It signifieth those that doe injoy the Law and yet sinne against it And much to this purpose is that Phrase Of the Law Rom. 4. 14. which sometimes is as much as Of the Circumcision to wit those that are initiated into the Ministery of Moses but in other places it signifieth as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the opposite to it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver 14. where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law he cannot meane the Law of Moses for all know that was long after but he meanes what 's done in obedience to the Morall Law so farre as it was then revealed The Apostle useth also another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law which is to be understood in this sense by works done in conformity to the Law and in this sense the Apostle urgeth that righteousnesse or the promise are not by the Law But all the difficulty in this controversie is about the phrase Vnder the Law Therefore take notice 4. There is a voluntary being under the Law as Christs was and A two-fold being under the Law there is to be under it in an ill sense A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law is acceptable And thus the Apostle 1 Cor. 9. 20. The Apostle saith he was made to some as under the Law though there indeed he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is added because of the ceremoniall part of the Law Therefore he calleth himselfe excellently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a godly man be not properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he addeth to Christ lest they should think that he spoke of the whole Law the ceremoniall part of it which was abolished by Christ so that a godly man in a well explained sense may be said to be under the Law but yet because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense as here in the text and in that place tell me ye that desire to be under
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
and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which Argum. 6 God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and doe them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of workes God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the Promise together making the inheritance by one and not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong Objections made from those Objections impugning the former Arguments answered places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the Promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture doe urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas we reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sinne if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seeme to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all doe acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why doe you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministry of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as separated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTURE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously The words opened and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that self confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applied universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein And Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long and put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of workes meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees And he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speakes here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they doe Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning up his works and never naming the grace of God is a boaster by the Law of workes but the Publican that looketh upon himself only as a sinner and so judgeth himselfe he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they meane by workes here in the Text those The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. which goe before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foule errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We doe not come by works to faith but by faith to works But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God If you aske why works do imply boasting though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God The answer is ready because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us which yet is defective that is wholly to be given unto Christ The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words is That al Doctr. though the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some
faith in Christ was immediately commanded there though obscurely because as is proved it was a Covenant of grace You see then that as in the transfiguration there was Christ and Moses together in glory so likewise may the Law and the Gospel be together in their glory and it is through our folly when we make them practically to hinder one another Though all this be true yet if the Gospel be taken strictly it The Gospel taken strictly comprehends no more then the glad tidings of a Saviour is not a doctrine of repentance or holy workes but a meere gracious promise of Christ to the broken heart for sin and doth comprehend no more then the glad tidings of a Saviour It is true learned men doe sometimes speak otherwise calling Faith and Repentance the two Evangelicall commands but then they use the word more largely for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles but in a strict sense it 's onely a promise of Christ and his benefits And in this sense wee may say the Gospel doth not terrifie or accuse Indeed there are wofull threatnings to him that rejecteth Christ yea more severe then to him that refused Moses but this ariseth from the Law joyned in practicall use with the Gospel And in this sense also it is said to be the savour of death unto many This ariseth not from the nature of the Gospel but from the Law that is enlightened by the Gospell so that hee being already condemned by the Law for not beleeving in Christ hee needeth not to be condemned againe by the Gospel If you say May not the sufferings of Christ make us to repent of sinne and all the love hee shewed therein Doe not godly Ministers to work people into an hatred of sinne tell them the price of blood is in every sinne committed Is it not said that they shall look upon him whom they have pierced and mourne for their sinnes I answer all this is true but then these things work by way of an object not as a command and it is from the Law that we should shew our selves kind unto him who loved us unto death so that the object is indeed from the Gospel but the command to be affected with his death because of his kindnesse therein manifested doth arise from Gods Law Let therefore those who say that the preaching of the Gospel will humble men and break their hearts for their sinnes consider how that it is true by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects Let the use of this doctrine be to direct Christians in their practicall improvement of Law and Gospel without hindring each other There are many things in Christianity that the people of God make to oppose one another when yet they would promote each other if wisely ordered Thus they make their joy and trembling their faith and repentance their zeale and prudence the Law and Gospel to thwart one another whereas by spirituall wisdome they might unite them take the Law for a goade the Gospel for a cordiall from the one be instructed from the other be supported when thy heart is carelesse and dull run thither to be excited when thy soul is dejected and fearfull throw thy selfe into the armes of the Gospel The Law hath a lovelinesse in it as well as the Gospel the one is a pure character and image of the holinesse of God the other is of the mercy and goodnesse of God so that the consideration of either may wonderfully inflame thy affections and raise them up LECTURE XXVIII ROM 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth AS the Physitian saith Peter Martyr who intends to give strong physicke which may expell noxious humours in the diseased body doth prepare the body first by some potions to make it fluide and fit for operation so Paul being sharply to accuse the Jewes and to drive them out of their selfe-righteousnesse doth manifest his love to them sugaring the bitter pill that they might swallow it with more delight And this his love is manifested partly by his expression brethren partly by his affections and prayers my hearts desire and prayer The occasion of this his affection is the zeale that they have for God but in a wrong way As the skillfull husbandman that seeth a piece of ground full of weeds and brambles wisheth hee had that ground which by culture and tillage would be made very fruitfull Amo unde amputem said the Orator I love the wit that needs some pruning The luxuriancy is a signe of fertility This zeale was not a good zeale partly because it wanted Zeale that either wants knowledge or puffs up no good zeale knowledge and therefore was like Sampson without his eyes partly because it made them proud which the Apostle fully expresseth in two particulars 1. They sought to establish their owne righteousnesse They sought this did imply their willfull pride and arrogancy and to establish which supposeth their righteousnesse was weak and infirme ready to fall to the ground but they would set it up for all that as the Philistims would their Dagon though hee was tumbled downe before the Ark. 2. The Apostle expresseth it signally when hee saith They submitted not themselves to the righteousnesse of God In the originall They were not submitted in the passive signification which still supposeth the great arrogancy that is in a man naturally being unwilling to deny his owne righteousness and to take Christ for all This being so take notice by the way of a foule errour of the Antinomian who denying assurance and comfort by signes of grace laboureth to prove that an unregenerate man may have universall obedience and sincere obedience bringing this instance of the Jewes for sincere obedience But sincerity may be taken two wales First as it opposeth Sincerity taken two waies grosse hypocrisie and so indeed the Jewes zeale was not hypocriticall because they did not goe against their conscience or Secondly it may be taken for the truth of grace and so the Jewes zeale was not a true gracious zeale for the reasons above named Now my Text that is given as a reason why the Jewes did look to their owne righteousnesse and not that of Gods because they neglected Christ who is here said to be the end of the Law for righteousnesse The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometimes signifie The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth the extreme and last end of a thing Thus Mark. 13. 7. The end is not yet so those who are against the calling of the nation of the Jewes bring that place 1 Thes 2. ver 16. Weath is come upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if there were no mercy to be expected But this may admit of another exposition Sometimes the word is used for perfection and fullfilling of a thing according to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom.
2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neere bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandement is charity may seeme to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fullfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fullnesse of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when hee gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law and the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to the scope of the Apostle who speaketh of such a Law that the Jewes expected righteousnesse by in the performing of it which must be the Morall Law only Now when we speak of the Morall Law having Christ for the end of it then in the second place that may be considered two waies 1. Either rigidly and in an abstracted consideration from the administration The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident of it as it doth require perfect obedience and condemning those that have it not now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope or end of the Law but it is meerly by accident and occasionall that a soule abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ onely you must know that the Law even so taken doth not exclude a Christ It requireth indeed a perfect righteousnesse of our owne yet if we bring the righteousnesse of a surety though this be not commanded by the Law yet it is not against the Law or excluded by it otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us 2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly of it by Moses in all the particulars of it and thus Christ was intended directly and not by accident that is God when hee gave the Law to the people of Israel did intend that the sense of their impossibility to keep it and infinite danger accrewing thereby to them should make them desire and seek out for Christ which the Jewes generally not understanding or neglecting did thereby like Adam goe to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakednesse their empty externall obedience According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end That an End is two-fold Either such to which a thing doth naturally incline of it selfe Or secondly That which becometh an end by the meere appointment and ordination of some Agent Now the end of the Law to which naturally it inclineth is eternall life to be obtained by a perfect righteousnesse in us but the instituted and appointed end which God the Law-giver made in the promulgation of it was the Lord Christ So that whatsoever the Law commanded promised or threatned it was to stirre up the Israelites unto Christ They were not to rest in those precepts or duties but to go on to Christ so that a beleever was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ and when he had found him he was to seek no further but to abide there Now this indeed was a very difficult duty because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour And what is the reason that under the Gospel beleevers are still so hardly perswaded to rest only on Christ for righteousnesse but because of that secret selfe dependance within them Having premised these things I come to shew how Christ is Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law the end of the Law taken largely in the ministry of Moses And in the first place Christ was the scope and end of intentention God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience would thereby humble and debase the Israelites so that thereby they should the more earnestly flye unto Christ even as the Israelite stung by a serpent would presently cast his eyes upon the brasen Serpent It is true Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there yet not so but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations And this you have fully set forth in that Allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth 3. 7. I shall explaine that place because it may be wrested 2 Cer. 3. 7. opened by the Antinomian as if because that kind of ministery which was by Moses was to be done away and evacuated therefore the preaching of the Law were also to be abrogated but that is The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects far from the Apostles scope for the Apostle his intent there is to shew the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel above that of the Law and that in three respects 1. In regard one is the ministery of death and condemnation the 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation other of life and righteousnesse Therefore the one is called Letter and the other Spirit Now this you must understand warily taking the Law nakedly and in it selfe without the Spirit of God and the Gospel with the Spirit for as Beza well observeth if you take the Gospel without Gods Spirit that also is the ministration of death because it is as impossible for us to beleeve as it is to obey the Law by our owne power only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel and not to the Law because Christ who is the authour of the Gospel is the fountaine of life and when any good is wrought by