thinketh so But Whether the Gospel doth promise eternall life to a man for any dignity intention merit work or any disposition in us under any distinction or notion whatsoever or only to faith apprehending Christ Now the Answer is that if we take the Gospel largly for the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles there is no question but they pressed duty of mortification sanctification threatning those that do not so but if you take the Gospel strictly then it holdeth forth nothing but remission of sins through Christ not requiring any other duty as a condition or using any threatning words thereunto But then it may be demanded To which is repentance reduced Is it a duty of the Law or a duty of the Gospel Of the Law strictlytaken it cannot be because that admitteth none Must it not therefore be of the Gospel And I find in this particular different either expressions or opinions and generally the Lutheran Divines do oppose the Antinomians upon this very ground that the Gospel is not a Sermon of repentance nor doth exhort thereunto but it must be had from the Law which doth prepare them for Christ I shall therefore because this was the foundation of Antinomianisme and it had it's rise from hence handle the next day this Question Whether the Gospel doth command repentance or no. Or Whether it be only from the Law LECTVRE XXVII ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the Law of faith I Proceed to the handling of this Question Whether the Gosspel preach repentance or no seeing this made the great commotion at first between the Orthodox and Antinomians I shall dispatch this in few words 1. The word Repentance is taken sometimes largely and sometimes strictly when it is taken largely it comprehends faith in it and is the whole turnign unto God Rev. 2. 5. sometimes it is used strictly for sorrow about sin and so distinguished from faith Thus they repented not that they might beleeve and faith and repentance are put together Now all the while a man hath trouble and sorrow for sin without faith it is like the body without the soul yea it carrieth a man with Cain and Judas into the very pit of dispair when a man seeth how much is against him and not how much is for him it cannot but crush and weigh him down to the ground The tears of repentance are like those waters very bitter till Christ sweeten them 2. Consider this that the Law was never meerly and solely administred nor yet the Gospel but they are twins that are inseparably united in the Word and Ministery Howsoever strictly taken there is a vast gulf of opposition between each other yet in their use they become exceeding subservient and helpfull mutually It is not good for the Law to be alone nor yet the Gospel Now the old Antinomians they taught repentance by the Gospel only that so the Law might be wholly excluded thus they did not consider what usefull subserviencie they had to one another The Law directeth commandeth and humbleth The Gospel that comforteth refresheth and supporteth And it is a great wisedom in a Christian when he hath an eye upon both Many are cast down because they only consider the perfection of the Law and their inability thereunto on the other side some grow secure and loose by attending to free-grace only I do acknowledge that free-grace will melt the heart into kindness and the fire will melt as well as the hammer batter into pieces but yet even this cannot be done without some use of the Law 3. Therefore being there is such a neer linck between both these in their practicall use we need not with some learned men make two Commandements of the Gospel only to wit the command to beleeve and the other command to repent neither need we with others make these commands Appendices to the Gospel but conclude thus that seeing Faith and Repentance have something initial in them and something consummative in them therefore they are both wrought by Law and Gospel also so that as they say there is a legal repentance and an evangelical so we may say there is a legal faith which consists in believing of the threatnings the terrours of the Lord and there is an evangelical faith which is in applying of Christ in the Promises So that legal faith and repentance may be called so initially and when it is evangelical it may be said to be consummate If therefore you aske Whether Faith and Repentance be by the Law or by the Gospel I answer It is by both and that these must not be seperated one from the other in the command of these duties Hence fourthly unbeliefe is a sin against the Law as well as against the Gospel Indeed the Gospel that doth manifest and declare the object of justifying faith but the Law condemneth him that doth not believe in him therefore Moses and the Law is said to bear witness of Christ and to accuse the Jews for refusing the Messias The Law that requireth belief in whatsoever God shall reveal The Gospel that makes known Christ and then the Law is as it were enlightened by the Gospel doth fasten a command upon us to beleeve in Christ This is true if you take the Law strictly and seperately from Moses his administration of it but if you take it largely as it was delivered by Moses then 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 is not a doctrine of repentance or holy works but a meere gracious promise of Christ to the broken heart for sin and doth comprehend no more then the glad tydings of a Saviour It is true learned men do 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 its only a promise of Christ and his benefits And in this sense we 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 Gospel so that he being already condemned by the Law for not beleeving in Christ he needeth to be condemned again by the Gospel If you say May not the sufferings
dead carkasse his living faith to dead unbelief his humility to loathsome pride see what a conclusion he makes I thank God through Jesus Christ It 's true many times the people of God out of the sense of their sinne are driven off from Christ but this is not the Scriptures direction That holds out riches in Christ for thy poverty righteousnesse in Christ for thy guilt peace in Christ for thy terrour And in this consideration it is that many times Luther hath such hyperbolicall speeches about the Law and about sinne All is spoken against a Christians opposing the Law to the Gospel so as if the discovering of the one did quite drive from the other And this is the reason why Papists and formall Christians never heartily and vehemently prize Christ taking up every crumb that falls from his table they are Christs to themselves and self-saviours I deny not but the preaching of Christ and about grace may also make us prize grace and Christ but such is our corruption that all is little enough Let me adde these cautions 1. It 's of great consequence in what sense we use the Word Law He that distinguisheth well teacheth well Now I observe a great neglect of this in the books written about these points and indeed the reason why some can so hardly endure the word Law is because they attend to the use of the word in English or the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Lex as it is defined by Tully and Aristotle which understand it a strict rule only of things to be done and that by way of meere command But now the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth comprehend more for that doth not only signifie strictly what is to be done but it denoteth largely any heavenly doctrine whether it be promise or precept and hence it is that the Apostle calleth it The law of faith which in some sense would be a contradiction and in some places where the word Law is used absolutely it 's much questioned whether he mean the Law or the Gospel and the reason why he calls it a law of faith is not as Chrysostome would have it because hereby he would sweeten the Gospel and for the words sake make it more pleasing to them but happily in a meere Hebraisme as signifying that in generall which doth declare and teach the will of God The Hebrewes have a more strict word for precept and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some say this also sometimes signifieth a Promise Psal 133. 3. There the Lord commanded a blessing i. e. promised so John 12. 50. his commandement i. e. his promise is life everlasting So then if we would attend to the Hebrew words it would not so trouble us to heare that it is good But yet the use of the word Law is very generall sometimes it signifieth any part of the Old Testament John 10. It is said in the Law Ye are gods And that is in the Psalmes Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are made all the books of the Old Testament sometimes the Law and the Psalmes are distinguished sometimes it is used for the ceremoniall law only Hebr. 10. 1. The Law having a shadow of things to come sometimes it is used synecdochically for some acts of the Law only as Galat. 5. Against such there is no law sometimes it is used for that whole oiconomy and peculiar dispensation of Gods worship unto the Jewes in which sense it is said to be untill John but grace and truth by Jesus Christ sometimes it is used in the sense of the Jewes as without Christ And thus the Apostle generally in the Epistle to the Romans and Galatians Indeed this is a dispute between Papists and us In what sense the Law is taken for the Papists would have it understood onely of the ceremoniall law But we answer that the beginning of the dispute was about the observation of those legall ceremonies as necessary to salvation But the Apostle goeth from the hypothesis to the thesis and sheweth that not only those ordinances but no other works may be put in Christs roome Therefore the Antinomian before he speaks any thing against or about the Law he must shew in what sense the Apostle useth it Sometimes it is taken strictly for the five books of Moses yea it is thought of many that book of the Law so often mentioned in Scripture which was kept with so much diligence was onely that book called Deuteronomy and commonly it is taken most strictly for the ten Commandements Now the different use of this word breeds all this obscurity and the Apostle argueth against it in one sense and pleadeth for it in another 2. The Law must not be separated from the Spirit of God The Law is only light to the understanding the Spirit of God must circumcise the heart to love it and delight in it otherwise that is true of Gods Law which Aristotle 2. Polit. cap. 2. said of all humane Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's not able of it self to make good and honest Citizens This is a principle alwayes to be carried along with you for the whole Word of God is the instrument and organ of spirituall life and the Law is part of this Word of God This I proved before nay should the Morall Law be quite abolished yet it would not be for this end because the Spirit of God did not use it as an instrument of life for we see all sides grant that circumcision and the sacraments are argued against by the Apostle as being against our Salvation and damnable in their own use now yet in the old Testament those sacraments of Circumcision and the Paschall Lamb were spirituall meanes of faith as truly as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are It is true there is a difference in the degree of Gods grace by them but not in the truth and therefore our Divines do well consute the Papists who hold those sacraments onely typicall of ours and not to be really exhibitive of grace as these are in the New Testament Therefore if the Apostles arguing against the Morall Law would prove it no instrument of Gods Spirit for our good the same would hold also in Circumcision and all those sacraments and therefore at least for that time they must grant it a help to Christ and grace as well as Circumcision was If you say Why then doth the Apostle argue against the works of the Morall Law I answer Because the Jewes rested in them without Christ and it is the fault of our people they turn the Gospel into the Law and we may say Whosoever seeks to be saved by his Baptisme he falls off from Christ 3. To doe a thing out of obedience to the Law and yet by love and delight doe not oppose one another About this I see a perpetuall mistake To lead a man by the Law is slavish it 's servile say they a Beleever is carried by
all difficulties The Lacedemonians when they went to war did sacrifice to Love because love only could make hardship and wounds and death it selfe easie Doe thou therefore pray that the love of God may be shed abroad in thine heart and consider these two things 1. How the Law laid upon Christ to dye and suffer for thee was not a burthen or terrour to him How doth he witnesse this by crying out With desire I have desired to drink of this cup Think with thy self If Christ had been as unwilling to die for me as I to pray to him to be patient to be holy what had become of my soule If Christ therefore said of that Law to be a Mediatour for thee Lo I come to doe thy will O God thy Law is within mine heart how much rather ought this to be true of thee in any thing thou shalt doe for him Thou hast not so much to part with for him as he for thee What is thy life and wealth to the glory of his God-head which was laid aside for a while And then secondly consider how that men love lusts for lusts sake they love the world because of the world Now evill is not so much evill as good is good sin is not so much sin as God is God and Christ is Christ If therefore a profane man because of his carnall heart can love his sin though it cost him hell because of the sweetnesse in it shall not the godly heart love the things of God because of the excellency in them But these things may be more enlarged in another place LECTURE VI. ROM 2. 14 15. For when the Gentiles which know not the law do the things of the law by nature these having not the law are a law unto themselves which shew the work of the law written in their hearts BEfore I handle the other places of Scripture that are brought by the Antinomians against the Law it is my intent for better methods sake and your more sound instruction to handle the whole Theology of the Law of God in the severall distributions of it and that positively controversally and practically and I shall begin first with the law of Nature that God hath imprinted in us and consider of this two waies 1. As it is a meere law and secondly As it was a covenant of works made with Adam And then in time I shall speak of the Morall Law given Moses which is the proper subject of these controversies The Text I have read is a golden Mine and deserveth diligent digging and searching into Therefore for the better understanding of these words let us answer these Questions 1. Who are meant by the Gentiles here It is ordinarily known that the Jewes did call all those Gentiles that were not Jewes by way of contempt as the Greeks and Romans called all other nations Barbarians Hence sometimes in the Scripture the word is applyed to wicked men though Jewes as Psal 2. Why doe the heathen rage It may be interpreted of the Pharisees resisting Christ Indeed the Jewes will not confesse that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes is any where applyed to them but this is very false for Genes 17. Abraham is there said to be the father of many nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentes therefore they must either deny themselves to be Abraham's seed or else acknowledge this word belonging to them But generally it signifieth those that had not the Lawes of Moses nor did live by them Therefore Gal. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live like a Gentile is not to observe the Lawes of Moses and in this sense it is to be taken here for the Apostles scope is to make good that great charge upon all mankinde both Jew and Gentile that naturally they are wholly in sin and God being no accepter of persons will destroy the one as well as the other And whereas it might be thought very hard to deale thus with the Gentile because no law was delivered unto him as unto the Jew the Apostle answereth that Objection in this place But grant it be understood of such Gentiles then there is a greater Question whether it be meant of the Gentiles abiding so or the Gentiles converted and turned beleevers for that the Apostle speaks of such most of the Latine Interpreters both ancient and modern doe affirme and so the Greek Father Chrysostome and Estius a learned Papist doe think there are so many arguments for it that it 's certaine I confesse they bring many probable reasons but I will not trouble you with them this seemeth a strong argument against them because the Apostle speaks of such who are without a law and a law to themselves which could not be true of Gentiles converted we take the Apostle therefore to speak of Gentiles abiding so but in this sense there is also a dangerous exposition and a sound one The poysonous interpretation is of the Pelagians who understand the law written in their hearts in the same sense as it is used Jerem. 33. even such a fulfilling of the law which will attaine to salvation and this they hold the Heathens by the law and help of nature did sufficiently But this is to overthrow the doctrine of Grace and Christ Therefore the sound interpretation is of the Gentiles indeed but yet to understand the law written in their hearts onely of those relicts of naturall reason and conscience which was in the Heathens as is to be proved anon The 2d. Question is easily answered How they are said to be without a law to wit without a written law as the Jewes had so that we may say they had a law without a law a law written but not declared The 3d. Question In what sense they are said to doe the things of the law and that by nature To doe the things of the law is not meant universally of all the Heathens for the Apostle shewed how most of them lived in the Chapter before nor secondly universally in regard of the matter contained in the law but some externall acts as Aristides and Socrates with others And here it 's disputed Whether a meere Heathen can doe any work morally good But wee answer No for every action ought to have a supernaturall end viz. the glory of God which they did not aime at therefore we do refuse that distinction of a morall good and theologicall because every morall good ought to be theologicall they may do that good matter of the law though not well And as for the manner how by nature those Interpreters that understand this Text of Gentiles beleevers say Nature is not here opposed to Grace but to the law written by Moses and therefore make it nature enabled by grace but this is shewed to be improbable By nature therefore we may understand that naturall light of conscience whereby they judged and performed some externall acts though these were done by the help of God The
if Adam had told a lye or the like it had been a sin as well as to eate of the forbidden fruit 3. The naturall impression of it in us We have it by nature it 's not a superadded work of God to put this into us This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus who out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God doth labour to shew that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us and that wee have none of these by nature in us And a godly man in his Book of Temptations holdeth the same opinion Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion but he goeth upon a false supposition that the Apostle his scope is to compare a Gentile supposed onely to doe the Law and not asserted to doe it before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law but not a doer of it therefore to debase the Jew he saith the Apostle speaketh conditionally to this purpose If an Heathen should keep the Law though he be not circumcised yet he would be preferred before you not saith he that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such doe and therefore presseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood and is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gentiles c. But his supposition is false for the Apostle's scope is to shew that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemne him because hee hath a law in himselfe as appeareth verse 12. As for the other consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Erasmus render it cum fecerint yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood as well as the Subjunctive It cannot therefore be true which hee saith that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature that if they were true it would necessarily justifie all Pelagianisme I shall not speak of his many arguments against naturall principles and knowledge of a God for he doth in effect at last yeeld to it 4. The extent of it And here it 's very hard to measure out the bounds of the law of Nature for some have judged that to be condemned by the law of Nature which others have thought the law of Nature approveth so true is that of Tertullian Legem Naturae opiniones suas vocant They call their opinions the law of Nature There are foure waies of bounding this law 1. Some make it those generall things wherein man and beast agree as defence of it self and desire of life but by this meanes that of naturall honesty and righteousnesse would be excluded for a beast is not capable of any sin or obligation by a law And howsoever that be much disputed upon Why God would have the beast killed that killed a man yet to omit the thoughts of many about it that was not because a beast could be tyed by a law but God to shew the horridnesse of the fact would have the very instrument punished 2. Some bound it by the custome of Nations that is jus Gentium but that is so diversified that a sin with some was a vertue with others 3. Some doe bind it by reason in every man but this is very uncertaine and one mans reason is contrary to anothers and one mans conscience is larger then anothers even as it is with measures in divers countries though they have the same name as a bushell c. yet they are different in quantity one is larger then another Lastly Others bound it by the will of God declared and manifested first to Noah in seven precepts and afterwards to Moses in the ten Commandements but these extend the law of Nature not onely to first principles but conclusions also deduced from thence 5. The obligation of it when the law of Nature doth bind And that is from God the authour of it God onely is under no law Every beleever though justified by Christ is under the Morall Law of Moses as also the law of Nature but now this law of Nature doth not so properly bind as it's mans reason or conscience as that it is the Vicegerent of God or a command from him and thus Cain by the law of Nature found a tye upon him not to sin and guilt because he did sin in murdering his brother although there was no Morall Law as yet given It is true indeed our Divines doe well reprove the Papists for calling all that time from Adam to Moses a state or law of Nature and this the Papists doe that therefore to offer sacrifice unto God may be proved from the law of Nature whereas those sacrifices being done in faith had the word of God otherwise we were bound still to offer Lambs or Kids to God which they deny 6. The perpetuity of this obligation This Law can never be abrogated And herein we may demand of the Antinomian Whether the law of Nature doe bind a beleever or no Whether he be bound to obey the dictates of his naturall conscience Suppose a beleever hath his naturall conscience dictating to him This sin he may not doe is he not obliged hereunto not onely from the matter for that he grants but as it is a law and command of God implanted in his soule I know there is a difference between the law of Nature and the ten Commandements as may be shewed hereafter but yet they agree in this that they are a rule immutable and of perpetuall obligation Therefore think not that because he dyed to free you from the curse of the Law that therefore you are freed from the obedience unto the law naturall or delivered by Moses To deny this is to deny that a beleever is bound to obey the sure dictates of a naturall conscience I know we are not alwayes bound to follow what conscience suggests for that is obscured and darkened but I speak of those dictates which are naturally known Other particulars as The insufficiency of it to direct in worship as also to save men I do put off and make application of what hath been delivered Use 1. Of Instruction against the Antinomian who must needs overthrow the directive and obligative force of the law of Nature as well as that of Moses Doth not even Nature teach you saith the Apostle Now if a man may not care for Moses teaching need he care for Nature teaching It is true I told you sometimes they grant the Law to be a rule but then afterwards they speak such things as are absolutely inconsistent with it There were some as Wendelinus reports Swencfeldians that held a man was never truly mortified till he had put out all sense of conscience for sinne if his conscience troubled him that was his imperfection he was not mortified enough I should doe the Antinomians wrong if I should say they deliver such things in their books but let them consider
heavens and this is quoted by the Apostle And here two doubts are by the way to be removed first Whether that of Bellarmine and others be 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 himself 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 Summaest 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 We read Act. 17. 23. of an altar to the unknown god But that is in this sense Among the Heathens it was uncertaine which of their gods were appropriated to such or such offices Hence when a plague was once at Athens Epimenides brought sheepe some whereof were black others white to Areopagus and letting them goe from thence whither they would directed them to sacrifice where they should lye down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the proper God and hence came their altars to an unknown God because they knew not which God to sacrifice to for the removing of their calamities The second Question is Whether the mystery of the Trinity and 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 Cor. 2. speaking of the mysteries of the Gospel 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 works 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 School-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 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 certainly if the Apostle argued that Christ died in vain if workes were joyned to him how much more if he be totally excluded It is true it seemeth a very
only take notice that we cannot make a third different estate wherein the Covenant of grace should be dispensed as an Antinomian author doth for our Saviour seemeth fully to conclude that he did belong to the Old Testament therefore he saith The least in the kingdome of heaven is greater then he Although in this respect he was greater then any of the Prophets that went before him that he did not prophesie of a Messias to come but pointed with his hand to him who was already come And as for the text it selfe none can prove that the Law was to be abrogated when John Baptist came for least any should by that expression think so our Saviour addeth Heaven and earth shall sooner passe away then that one title should fall to the ground Therefore the meaning is that the Law in respect of the typicall part of it as it did shadow forth and prefigure a Christ so it was to cease Therefore the Law and the Prophets are put together as agreeing in one general thing which is to foretell of Christ and to typifie him And this will be clearer if you compare Matth 11. 13. with this of Luke where it is thus set down All the Prophets and the Law prophesied unto John whereby it is cleare that he speakes of the typicall part of the Law yet not so as if the Ceremonies were then immediatly to cease only from that time they began to vanish The next place of Scripture is that famous instance so much urged in this controversie Rom. 6. 15. For you are not under the Law but under grace Now to open this consider these things 1. In what sense the Apostle argueth against the Law and what was the proper state of the Question in those dayes And that appeareth Act. 1. 5. where you have a relation made of some beleeving Jewes that were of the sect of the Pharisees who pressed the necessity of Circumcision and so would joyn the mistery of Moses and Christ together Now it seemeth though the Apostles in this councell had condemned that opinion yet there were many that would still revive this errour and therefore the Apostle in this Epistle to the Romans and in that to the Galathians doth reprove this false doctrine and labour much against it Stapleton and other papists they think that the controversie was only about the Ceremoniall Law and this they do to maintain their justification by the works of the Law when wrought by grace But though it must be granted that the doubts about keeping the Ceremoniall Law were the occasion of that great difference and the most principall thing in question yet the Apostle to set forth the fulnesse of grace and Christ doth extend his arguments and instances even to the Morall Law for the Jewes did generally think that the knowledge and observation of the Morall Law without Christ was enough for their peace and comfort That the Apostle argueth against the Law in their abused sense of it is plain because when he speaks of it in it's own nature he commends it and extols it The Jewes because they had the Law given them in such a Divine and glorious manner attributing too much to themselves thought by the obedience to this alone without Christ to be justified as appeareth Rom 10. 1. Hence the Apostle speaketh against it in their sense looking for Justification by it as if a learned man confuting some Philosophers which do hold that the second causes do work by their own proper strength without any concourse of God he must in his arguments suppose such a power of the second cause which the adversary pleadeth for in his minde and in expressions sometimes yet none can gather from that therefore there is such a power in the second causes And if they could perswade themselves that the externall performing of the Ceremoniall Law was enough to make them acceptable with God though they lived in grosse disobedience to the Morall Law as Isai 1. alibi it many times appeareth they did how much more when they lived a life externally conformable to the Morall Law must they needs be secure of their favour with God And in this sense it is that the Apostle speaks seemingly derogatory to the Law because they took it without Christ Even as he calleth the ceremonies beggerly elements when yet we know they were signes of an Evangelicall grace 2. That the Apostle useth the word Law in divers senses which hath been the occasion of so much difficulty in this point Now in most of those places where the Law seemeth to be abolished it is taken in one of these two senses Either first synecdochically the Law put for part of the Law to wit for that part which actually condemneth and accuseth as when the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law here he speaketh as if there were nothing in a Law but condemnation whereas we may say A Law is for a thing by way of direction and prescription as well as against a thing by accusation Or secondly the word Law is put for the ministery of Moses which dispensation was farre inferiour unto the ministery of the Gospel And in this sense the Apostle doth much use it in the Epistle to the Galathians and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes So that here is a continuall mistake when the Antinomians heap place upon place which seem to abolish the Law and do not first declare what Law and in what sense those places are to be expounded 3. Consider these Phrases Of the Law Without the Law Under the Law and In the Law Without the Law is two wayes First he is without the Law that is without the knowledge and understanding of it Thus the Gentiles are without the Law And secondly Without the Law that is without the sense and experience of the accusing and terrifying power of the Law and thus Paul Rom. 7. said when the Law came he died Now the godly though they are denied to be under the Law yet they are not said to be without the Law for if the Morall Law were no more obliging beleevers now then it was Heathens or Gentiles before they ever heard of it both in respect of knowledge and observation of it then might beleevers be said to be without the Law and to this without the Law is opposed In the Law Rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vulgar In legem Beza cum lege It signifieth those that do enjoy the Law and yet sinne against it And much to this purpose is that Phrase Of the Law Rom. 4. 14. which sometimes is as much as Of the Circumcision to wit those that are initiated into the Ministery of Moses but in other places it signifieth as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the opposite to it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this 4. of the Rom. and ver 14 where the Apostle declaring that the promise made to Abraham was not of the Law
must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and dark And it is to be observed that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision and even all the Ceremoniall Law as the Morall yea the first rise of the cōtroversie was from that Now all must confesse that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ or grace but rather included them And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative It is true the Jewes they rested upon these and did not look to Christ but so do our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appear from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with blood And this did signifie Christ for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortall man When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour it is to be understood typically even as the sacrifices did wash away sin typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or real some think Christ likewise was the Angell spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and do them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of works God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the promise together making the inheritance by one not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong objections made from those places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture do urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas they reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sin if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seem to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all do acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why do you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministery of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as seperated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTVRE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that selfe confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applyed universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein and Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of works meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees and he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speaks here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they do Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning
up his works and never naming the grace of God is a boaster by the Law of works but the Publican that looketh upon himselfe only as a sinner and so judgeth himself he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they mean by works here in the Text those which go before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foul errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We do not come by works to faith but by faith to Works But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God If you ask why works do imply boasting though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God The answer is ready because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us which yet is defective that is wholly to be given unto Christ The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words is That although the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some sense the Law and Gospel do oppose and thwart one another And this matter I undertake because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered It is an errour saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit cap. 9. in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousness and saith he this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary meaning by the Law that rule of life whereby God doth require of us that which is his own given us no ground of hope unlesse in every respect we keep the Law but saith he quum de totâ lege agitur when he speaks of the Law more largely taken he makes them to differ only in respect of clearer manifestation or as Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant they differ not essentially but as we say the old and new Moon Therefore before I come to shew the exact opposition take notice of two things as a foundation first that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old-Testament the New and then they differ onely gradually for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God though Socinians deny it although indeed in respect of the Gospel it may comparatively be said no spirit and no grace as when it is said The holy Ghost was not yet given because it was not so plentifully given Or secondly the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law only this is the reason why we cannot say The Spirit of God or grace or life is by the Law because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes it is not of the Law but of the grace of God or the Gospel Therefore whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together we must be sure to make the parallel equall and to take them so oppositely that we may not give the one more advantage or lesse then the nature of it doth crave and desire In the second place therefore in this controversie still remember to carry along with you the different use of the word Law as to this point for if you take Law strictly and yet make it a Covenant of grace you confound the righteousnesse of works and of faith together as the Papists do but if largely then there may be an happy reconciliation For the better opening of this consider that as the word Law so the word Gospel may be taken largely or strictly We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word or whether it be used any where of a sorrowfull message as well as glad newes as some say in two places it is used 1. Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers Non infrequens esse specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi It is enough to our purpose that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely and sometimes more strictly when it 's taken largely it signifieth the whole doctrine that the Apostles were to preach Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel i. e. the doctrine preaching of Christ Or else it is taken most strictly as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings c. In which strict sence it 's called the Gospel of peace and of the grace of God So that you see the word Law is taken differently largely and strictly thus also is the word Gospel Now it 's a great dispute Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel or no I finde the Lutherans Antinomians and Calvinists to speak differently but of that when we take the Law and Gospel in their most strict sense Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument that the Protestants do deny the necessity of good works because they hold that the Gospel hath no precepts or threatnings in it lib. 4. de Justif cap. 2. And he urgeth against them that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is said to be revealed from heaven in the Gospel but as is to be shewed he there doth mistake the state of the controversie taking the word Gospel in a larger sense then they intended Thus on the other side Islebius the father of the Antinomians he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue but from the Gospel that to preserve the purity of doctrine we ought to resist all those who teach the Gospel must not be preached but to those who are made contrite by the Law whereas the right unfolding of the word Gospel would make up quickly those breaches The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception I shall first shew the opposition between the Law and the Gospel taken in their large sense and then in the limited sense And this is worth the while because this is the foundation of all our comfort if rightly understood Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New-Testament or Covenant wherein the Learned speak very differently and as to my apprehension most confusedly I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New which Austin Chemnitius and others urge because it presseth the old man condemneth that whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new
former Though they doe not teach other things yet they must not spend their gifts in an uselesse way as to give heed to fables This they apply to the Jewes who had a world of fictions So Tertullian of Valentinus Multas introduxit fabulas we see here the word fable in an ill sense Therefore Grotius cannot be excused who calleth our Saviours Parables fables as that of the Prodigall who spent his portion Haec sabula saith he nos decet quod omnes ortu sunt filii Dei where both his words and matter are very offensive to the truth It is true we finde the Fathers Gregory Nazianzen and others use sometimes a fable in their Orations to denote some morall matter but such the Jewes did not use As they must not give heed to fables so neither to endlesse genealogies We see a good use made of genealogies in the Scriptures but here is reproved the sinfull use of them as those Grammarians among the Heathens that spent their time about Heeuba's mother or Achilles pedegree and what it was that the Syren's sung and these he calls endlesse because vaine curiosity is more unruly then the waves of the sea it hath no limiting Hitherto shalt thou goe and no further Although some referre genealogy not so much to persons as things for that the Jewes called genealogy when one thing was fained to flow from and as it were to be begotten of another therefore saith one Paul ver 5. gives a short but profitable genealogy when he makes a good conscience to flow from a faith unfained Now mark the Apostle condemneth all these because they doe not edifie The shell-fish among the Jewes was accounted uncleane because it had but a little meat and a great deal of labour to get it and this is true of all doctrines which have no profit in them The Apostle therefore tells us what is the true use of the Law the end of the precept Scultetus who hath it out of Chrysostome makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be the law but the ministry or preaching and so the Apostle useth the word v. 3. But grant it be so yet they all agree he speaks of the Law strictly taken afterwards The Apostle therefore reproving these false teachers that did turn bread into stones and fish into serpents the good law into unprofitablenesse lest this should be thought to traduce the law he addeth We know as if that were without question to all So that there is a position The Law is good and a supposition If a man use it lawfully with a correction The Law is not made to the righteous As Austin said It was hard to speak for free-will and not to deny free-grace or free-grace and not to deny free-will so it 's hard to give the Law its due and not to seeme to prejudice the Gospel or the Gospel and not to prejudice the Law For take but these two Verses Videtur Apostolus pugnantia dicere The Apostle seemeth to speake contradictions saith Martyr For seeing none can use the Law well but a righteous man how then is not the Law given to him But this knot shall be untyed in its proper place I shall at this time handle the first proposition that is conditionall only I might insist upon opening the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Law For I conceive the neglect of the different use of this doth breed many errours for there is a law that we are to be Antinomians or contrary to and there is a law that we must submit to But of this I will speak in one particular caution Observ 1. The Law of God is good if a man use it lawfully Observ 2. which is implyed that the Law of God may be used unlawfully The Law is good 1. In respect of the matter of it therein contained for if you take the spirituall interpretation of it you will finde all the matter exceeding good to love God to trust in him c. how good are they Yea there is no duty now required of us but is contained there Therefore Peter Martyr did well resemble the Decalogue to the ten Predicaments that as there is nothing hath a being in nature but what may be reduced to one of those ten so neither is there any Christian duty but what is comprehended in one of these that is consequentially or reductively And if Tully durst say that the law of the twelve Tables did exceed all the libraries of Philosophers both in weight of authority and fruitfulnesse of matter how much rather is this true of Gods Law It 's disputed Whether justifying faith be commanded in the Law here are different opinions but when I handle this Question Whether the Law of Moses and that which was ingraffed in Adams heart in innocency be all one it will be proper to speak of that Peter Martyr handling the division of the ten Commandements how the number should be made up makes that which is commonly called the Preface I am the Lord thy God which are words of a Covenant to be the first Commandment and if so then must justifying faith be enjoyned there And thus did some of the Fathers though those words are only enunciative and not preceptive But more determinatively of this in its place 2. In respect of the authority stamped upon it by God whereby it becomes a rule unto us The former is agreed on by all and I see few that dare openly deny the other for seeing the matter is intrinsecally and eternally good it cannot but be commanded by God though not to justifie for that is separable from it There are some things that are justa because Deus vult as in all positive things and then there are other things just and therefore God wills them though even they are also just because they are consonant to that eternall justice and goodnesse in himself so that indeed it is so farre from being true that the Law which hath Gods authority stampt on it for a rule and so is mandatum should be abrogated that it is impossible nè per Deum quidem for then God should deny his own justice and goodnesse therefore we doe justly abhorre those blasphemous Questions among the School-men An Deus possit mandare edium sui c. for it's impossible Therefore we see Matth. 5. that our Saviour is so farre from abrogating it that he sheweth the spirituall extent of the mandatory power of the Law farre beyond Pharisees expectation and thus James urgeth the authority of the Law-giver The obligation by the Law is eternall and immutable insomuch that it doth absolutely imply a contradiction that there should be in mans nature an holinesse or righteousnesse without a law or subjection to the command of God Hence it is a dangerous opinion of some who say the holinesse of our natures is not commanded by the Law but of our actions and so not originall sinne but onely actuall sinne shall be forbidden by the Decalogue 3.
for me Conjunge Domine obsequium meum cum omnibus quae Christus passus est pro me And how absurd is that doctrine Si bona opera sunt magis bona quà m mala opera mala fortiùs merentur vitam aeternam 14. It taketh away the true doctrine of the Law as if that were possible to be kept For works could not justifie us unlesse they were answerable to that righteousnesse which God commands but Rom. 3. that which was impossible for the Law Christ hath fulfilled in us 15. It overthroweth the consideration of a man while he is justified For they look upon him as godly but the Scripture as ungodly Rom. 4. who justifieth the ungodly Some by ungodly meane any prophane man whereas it is rather one that is not perfectly godly for Abraham is here made the ungodly person I know it is explained otherwise but certainly this is most genuine Use 1. Of Instruction How uncharitably and falsly many men charge it generally upon our godly Ministers that they are nothing but Justitiaries and Legall Preachers For do not all sound and godly Ministers hold forth this Christ this righteousnesse this way of justification Do not all our Protestant authours maintain this truth as that which discerneth us from Heathens Jewes Papists and others in the world May not these things be heard in our Sermons daily Use 2. It is not every kind of denying the Law and setting up of Christ and Grace is presently Antinomianisme Luther writing upon Genesis handling that sin of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit speaketh of a Fanatique as he calls him that denyed Adam could sinne because the Law is not given to the righteous Now saith Bellarmine this is an argument satis aptè deductum ex principiis Lutheranorum because they deny the Law to a righteous man Here you see he chargeth Antinomianisme upon Luther but of these things more hereafter Use 3. To take heed of using the Law for our justification It 's an unwarranted way you cannot finde comfort there Therefore let Christ be made the matter of your righteousnesse and comfort more then he hath been You know the posts that were not sprinkled with bloud were sure to be destroyed and so are all those persons and duties that have not Christ upon them Christ is the propitiation and the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for covering and propitiating of sinne is Genes 6. used of the pitch or plaister whereby the wood of the Ark was so fastened that no water could get in and it doth well resemble the atonement made by Christ whereby we are so covered that the waters of Gods wrath cannot enter upon us And do not think to beleeve in Christ a contemptible and unlikely way for it is not because of the dignitie of faith but by Christ You see the Hyssop or whatsoever it was which did sprinkle the bloud was a contemptible herb yet the instrument to represent great deliverance LECTURE III. 1 TIM 1. 8 9. Knowing the Law is good if a man use it lawfully IT is my intent after the cleare proofe of Justification by the grace of God and not of works to shew how corrupt the Antinomian is in his inferences hence-from and this being done I shall shew you the necessity of holy and good works notwithstanding But before I come to handle some of their dangerous errours in this point let me premise something As 1. How cautelous and wary the Ministers of God ought to be in this matter so to set forth grace as not to give just exception to the popish caviller and so to defend holy works as not to give the Antinomian cause of insultation While our Protestant authors were diligent in digging out that precious gold of justification by free-grace out of the mine of the Scripture see what Canons the Councell of Trent made against them as Antinomian Can. 19. If any man shall say The ten Precepts belong nothing at all to Christians let him be accursed Decem praecepta nihil ad Christianos pertinere anathema sit Again Can. 20. If any man shall hold that a justified person is not bound to the observation of the Commandements but only to believe let him be accursed Si quis dixerit hominem justificatum non teneri ad observantiam mandatorum sed tantùm ad credendum anathema sit Again Can. 21. If any shall hold Christ Jesus to be given unto men as a Redeemer in whom they are to trust but not as a Law-giver whom they are to obey let him be accursed Si quis dixerit Christum Jesum datum fuisse hominibus ut redemptorem cui fidant non autem ut legislatorem cui obediant anathema sit You may gather by these their Canons that we hold such opinions as indeed the Antinomian-doth but our Writers answer Here they grossely mistake us and if this were all the controversie we should quickly agree It is no wonder then if it be so hard to preach free-grace and not provoke the Papist or on the other side to preach good works of the Law and not offend the Antinomian 2. There have been dangerous assertions about good works even by those that were no Antinomians out of a great zeale for the grace of God against Papists These indeed for ought I can learn did no wayes joyn with the Antinomians but in this point there is too much affinity There were rigid Lutherans called Flacians who as they did goe too far at least in their expressions about originall corruption for there are those that doe excuse them so also they went too high against good works Therefore in stead of that position maintained by the Orthodox Good works are necessary to salvation Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem they held Good works are pernicious to salvation Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem The occasion of this division was the book called The Interim which Charles the Emperour would have brought into the Germane Churches In that book was this passage Good works are necessary to salvation to which Melancthon and others assented not understanding a necessity of merit or efficiency but of presence but Flacius Illyricus and his followers would not taking many high expressions out of Luther even as the Antinomians doe for their ground Hence also Zanchy because in his writings he had such passages as these No man grown up can be saved unlesse he give himself to good works and walk in them One Hinckellman a Lutheran doth endeavour by a troop of nine Arguments to tread downe this assertion of Zanchy which he calls Calviniana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a most manifest errour Now if all this were spoken to take men off from that generall secret sin of putting confidence in the good works we doe it were more tolerable in which sense we applaud that of Luther Take heed not only of evil works but of good Cave non tantùm ab operibus malis sed etiam
must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God All the unregenerate mans actions his prayers and services are sinnes 3. It must flow from an inward principle of grace or a supernaturall being in the soule whereby a man is a new creature 4. The end must be Gods glory That which the most refined man can doe is but a glow-worm not a starre So that then onely is the work good when being answerable to the rule it 's from God and through God and to God 2. That the Antinomian erreth two contrary wayes about good works Sometimes they speak very erroneously and grosly about them Thus Islebius Agricola the first Antinomian that was who afterwards joyned with others in making that wicked Book called The Interim and his followers deliver these Positions That saying of Peter Make your calling and election sure is dictum inutile an unprofitable saying and Peter did not understand Christian liberty So again As soon as thou once beginnest to thinke how men should live godlily and modestly presently thou hast wandered from the Gospel And again The Law and works only belong to the Court of Rome Then on the other side they lift them up so high that by reason of Christs righteousnesse imputed to us they hold all our workes perfect and so apply that place Ephes 1. Christs clensing his Church so as to be without spot or wrinkle even pure in this life They tell us not onely of a righteousnesse or justification by imputation but also Saintship and holinesse by this obedience of Christ And hence it is that God seeth no sin in beleevers This is a dangerous position and although they have Similies to illustrate and distinctions to qualifie it yet when I speak of imputed righteousnesse there will be the proper place to shew the dangerous falshood of them 3. You must in the discourse you shall heare concerning the necessity of good works carefully distinguish between these two Propositions Good workes are necessary to beleevers to justified persons or to those that shall be saved and this Good works are necessary to justification and salvation Howsoever this later is true in some sense yet because the words carry as if holinesse had some effect immediately upon our justification and salvation therefore I do wholly assent to those learned men that think in these two cases we should not use such a Proposition 1. When we deale with adversaries especially Papists in disputation for then we ought to speak exactly Therefore the Fathers would not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Virgin Mary lest they should seem to yeeld to Nestorius who denyed her to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second case is in our sermons and exhortations to people for what common hearer is there that upon such a speech doth not conceive that they are so necessary as that they immediately work our justification The former proposition holds them offices and duties in the persons justified the other as conditions effecting justification 4. These good works ought to be done or are necessary upon these grounds 1. They are the fruit and end of Christs death Titus 2. 14. It 's a full place The Apostle there sheweth that the whole fruit and benefit of Christs redemption is lost by those that live not holily There are two things in our sins 1. The guilt and that Christ doth redeem us from 2. The filth and that he doth purifie from If Christ redeem thee from the guilt of thy lusts hee will purifie thee from the noisomenesse of them And mark a two-fold end of this purification that we may be a peculiar people This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierome saith he sought for among humane authours and could not finde it therefore some think the Seventy feigned this and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It answers to the Hebrew word Segullah and signifieth that which is precious and excellent got also with much labour so that this holinesse this repentance of thine it cost Christ deare And the other effect is zealous of good workes The Greek Fathers observe the Apostle doth not say followers but zealous that doth imply great alacrity and affection And lest men should think we should onely preach of Christ and grace These things speak saith he and exhort And Calvin thinketh the last words Let no man despise thee spoken to the people because they are for the most part of delicate eares and cannot abide plaine words of mortification 2. There is some kind of Analogicall relation between them and heaven comparatively with evill works So those places where it 's said If wee confesse our sins he is not onely faithfull but also just to forgive us our iniquities So 2 Tim. 4. 8. a Crowne of righteousnesse which the righteous Judge c. These words doe not imply any condignity or efficiency in the good things wee doe but an ordinability of them to eternall life so that evill and wicked workes they cannot be ordained to everlasting life but these may Hence some Divines say That though godlinesse be not meritorious nor causall of salvation yet it may be a motive as they instance If a King should give great preferment to one that should salute him in a morning this salutation were neither meritorious nor causall of that preferment but a meer motive arising from the good pleasure of the King And thus much they think that particle for I was an hungry doth imply So that God having appointed holinesse the way and salvation the end hence there ariseth a relation between one and the other 3. There is a promise made to them 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godlinesse hath the promises as it is in the Originall because there are many promises scattered up and down in the Word of God so that to every godly action thou doest there is a promise of eternall life And hereby though God be not a debtor to thee yet he is to himselfe and to his owne faithfulnesse Reddis debita nulli debens cryed Austine so that the godly may say Oh Lord it was free for thee before thou hadst promised whether thou wouldst give me heaven or no but now the word is out of thy mouth not but that we deserve the contrary onely the Lord is faithfull therefore saith David I will mention thy righteousnesse i. e. faithfulnesse onely and the Apostle This is a faithfull saying and worthy of all acceptation This made them labour and suffer shame If you aske How then is not the Gospel a Covenant of workes That in brief shall be answered afterwards 4. They are Testimonies whereby our election is made sure 2 Pet. 1. ver 10. Make your calling and election sure The Vulgar Translator interposeth those words per bona opera and complaineth of Luther as putting this out of the Text because it made against him but it 's no part of Scripture Now observe the emphasis of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first they must be very
soul hath said By one man sin so let it say By one man life LECTURE XIII GENES 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die I Have already handled this Text as it containeth a law given to Adam by God as a foveraigne Lord over him now I shall re-assume this Text and consider it as part of a Covenant which God did enter into with Adam and his posterity for these two things a Law and a Covenant arise from different grounds The Law is from God as supreme and having absolute power and so requiring subjection the other ariseth from the love and goodnesse of God whereby he doth sweeten and mollifie that power of his and ingageth himself to reward that obedience which were otherwise due though God should never recompence it The words therefore being heretofore explained and the Text eas'd of all difficulties I observe this Doctrine That God did not only as a Law-giver injoys obedience unto Adam but as a loving God did also enter into covenant with him And for the opening of this you must take these Considerations 1. That this covenant with Adam in the state of innocency is more obscurely laid down then the covenant of grace after the fall for afterwards you have the expresse name of the Covenant and the solemne entring into it by both parties but this Covenant made with Adam must only be gathered by deduction and consequence This Text cometh the neerest to a Covenant because here is the threatning expressed and so by consequent some good thing promised to obedience We are not therefore to be so rigid as to call for expresse places which doe name this Covenant for that which is necessarily and immediately drawn from Scripture is as truly Scripture as that which is expresly contained in it Now there are these grounds to prove God dealt in these commandements by way of Covenant 1. From the evil threatned and the good promised For while there is a meere command so long it is a law onely but when it is further confirmed by promises and threatnings then it becomes a Covenant And if that position be true of some which maketh the tree of life a sacrament then here was not onely nudum pactum a meer covenant but a seale also to confirme it And certainly being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey seeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature it was of his meere goodnesse to become ingaged in a promise for this I know it 's a Question by some Whether Adam upon his obedience should have been translated into heaven or confirmed onely in that naturall life which was marvellous happy But either way would have been by meer promise of God not by any naturall necessity Life must be extended as farre as death now the death threatned was not onely a bodily death but death in hell why therefore should not the life promised be a life in heaven In the second place another argument to confirme that God dealt in a Covenant with Adam is in that his posterity becomes guilty of his sin and so obnoxious unto the same punishment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own person Now we must come to be thus in Adam either by a naturall propagation and then Adam should be no more to us then our parents and our parents sins should be made ours as well as Adams which is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 5. who chargeth it still upon one man And besides who can say that the righteousnesse holinesse and happinesse which we should have been partakers of in Adams standing could come by a naturall necessity but onely by the meere covenant and agreement of God Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us as well as his sin Lastly the Apostle Rom. 5. makes all men in Adam as the godly are in Christ now beleevers come to receive of Christ not from a naturall necessity because they have that humane nature which Christ took upon him for so all should be saved but by a federall agreement 2. Let us consider in the next place what a Covenant doth imply first in the word then in the thing signified For I should deal very imperfectly if I did not speak something of the generall nature of it though hereafter more may be spoken of You may therefore take notice that there are things among men that doe induce a publike obligation that yet doe differ A Law a Covenant and a Testament Now a Law and a Testament they are absolute and doe not imply any consent of the party under them As a Law requireth subjection not attending unto or expecting the consent of inferiours and so a Testament or a Will of man is to bequeath such goods and legacies unto a man not expecting a consent Indeed sometimes such goods are bequeathed with a condition and so a man may refuse whether he will be executor or no but this is accidentall to the nature of a Testament But a Covenant that differs from the two former in that it doth require consent and agreement between two parties and in Divinity if it be between man entire and upright it is called by some A Covenant of friendship if it be between God and man fallen it is called A Covenant of reconciliation Hence in Covenants that are not nuda pacta meer Covenants but are accompanied with some solemnities there were stipulations added which were done by Question and Answer Doe you promise I promise Hence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we call it Stipulation from the Latine word which comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these words did make the Covenant valid As for Isidorus his etymology of stipulation à frangendis stipulis because when they promised or entred into an agreement they brake a stick between them and then joyning it together so made a promise and every party kept a piece as a tally to maintain their agreement this is rejected by the learned Salmasius But because a Covenant doth thus differ from a Testament hence hath it troubled the Learned why the Hebrew word which signifieth a Covenant should be translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the New Testament useth it in this sense for if it be a Covenant how can it be a Testament which implyeth no consent Let us answer first to the word and then to the matter Therefore is a Covenant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aquila translates it because this word is of a large sense coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order and dispose and when we say the New or Old Testament it is not to be taken so strictly as we call a mans Will and Testament though sometimes the Apostle
from the beginning if upon thy sick weak and mortall body It was not thus from the beginning Now here is no way to keep up the heart but by looking to Christ Though thou hast lost the image of God yet he is the expresse image of his Father Though thou hast not perfect righteousnesse he hath Whatsoever thy losse and evil be by the first Adam thy gain and good may be by the last Adam Admire herein the mysteries of Gods grace and love What may we not expect for temporalls if needfull when he is thus gracious in spiritualls Are riches subsistence equall to Christ Use 2. Of Exhortation not to rest in any estate but that of restauration again The word as you heard Ephes 1. 10. to gather doth imply that all mankind is like an house fallen down lying in its rubbish and ruines Let us not therefore stay in this condition It 's a condition of sinne of wrath Oh much better never to have been born then to be thus How happy are all the irrationall creatures in their estate above us if not repaired by Christ And know that to be restored again to this image of God is a great and rare blessing few partake of it Holinesse must be as inwardly rooted and settled in thee as ever sinne and corruption hath soaked into thee Thou didst drink iniquity like water doest thou now as the Hart pant after the water-brooks The resurrection of the soul must be in this life It was sinfull proud but it 's raised an holy humble soule LECTVRE XV. EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. HAving handled the Law given to Adam in innocency both absolutely as it is a Law and relatively as a Covenant we now proceed to speak of that Law given by God through the ministery of Moses to the people of Israel which is the great subject in controversie between the Antinomians and us There were indeed Precepts and Laws given before Moses Hence the Learned speak much of Noah's Precepts The Talmudists say as Cuneus relates that these seven Precepts of Noah did contain such an exact rule of righteousness that whosoever did not know them the Israelites were commanded to kill But because these are impertinent to my scope I pass them by And in the handling of this Law of Moses I will use my former method considering the Law absolutely in it self and then relatively as a Covenant for as God you have heard hath suffered other errours about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity and the grace of God therefore to break forth that the truth about them may be more cleared and manifested so happily the Law will be more extolled in its dignity and excellency then ever by those opinions which would overthrow it The Text upon which most of the matter I have to say shall be grounded are the words now read unto you that are an introduction to the Law containing briefly 1. The nature of the matter delivered which is called Words so Deut 4. ten words hence it s called the Decalogue Now the Hebrew word is used not for a word meerly as we say one word for so the ten Commandments are more then ten words but it signifieth a concise and brief sentence by way of command Hence it s translated sometimes by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 17. 19. and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 118. 57. so in the New Testament that which is called by Mark 7. 13. the word of God is by Matthew named the commandment of God So Paul also Gal. 5. 14. The whole Law is fulfilled in one word that is one brief sentence by way of command 2. You have the note of universality All these words to shew that nothing may be added to them or diminished onely here is a difficulty for Deut. 5. where these things are repeated again by Moses there some things are transposed and some words are changed But this may be answered easily that the Scripture doth frequently use a liberty in changing of words when it repeateth the same thing onely it doth not alter the sense And happily this may be to confute that superstitious opinion of the Jews who are ready to dream of miraculous mysteries in every letter 3. There is the efficient cause of this in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used in the plurall as some of the Learned observe defectively and is to be supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the excellency of God as they say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for excellentissima fera By the Septuagint its translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because saith a learned man they interpreting this for the Grecians and the wise men amongst them attributing the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they would use a word to shew that he who gave the Law was Lord even over all those Now God is here described to be the author of these Laws that so the greater authority may be procured to them Hence all Law-givers have endeavoured to perswade the people that they had their Laws from God 4. You have the manner of delivering them God spake them saying which is not to be understood as if God were a body and had organs of speaking but only that he formed a voice in the air Now here ariseth a great difficulty because of Acts 7. where he that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai is called the Angel This maketh the Papists and Grotius go upon a dangerous foundation That God did not immediatly deliver the Law but an Angel who is therefore called God and assumes unto himself the name Jehovah because he did represent the person of God But this is confuted by the learned I shall not preface any further but raise this Doctrine That God delivered a Law to the people of Israel by the hand or ministry of Moses I shall God willing handle this point doctrinally in all the Theological considerations about the Law and First you must still remember that the word Law may be used in divers senses and before this or that be asserted of it you must clear in what sense you speak of the Law Not to trouble you again with the several acceptions of the word which you must have alwaies in your eye take notice at the present of what a large or restrained signification the word Law is capable of for we may either take the word Law for the whole dispensation and promulgation of the Commandments Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall Or else more strictly for that part which we call the Morall Law yet with the preface and promises added to it and in both these respects the Law was given as a Covenant of grace which is to be proved in due time Or else most strictly
those titles of commendation which are due to it now in what sense the Law is said to be ordained by Angels is hard to say That you may the better understand this place compare with it Act. 7. v. 53. Who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels Heb. 2. 2. If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast c. Deut. 33. 2. The Lord came from Sinai with ten thousands of Saints from his right hand went a fiery law for them though this seemeth to refer to the people of Israel rather then the Angels But the Septuagint interpret it of Angels In the Greek we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as command sanction and ordaining as Rom. 13. 2. The ordinance of God so then the sence of the places put together amounts to thus much That Iesus Christ Act 7. 38. Who is the Angel that spake to Moses in the mount and the same which appeared to him in the bush ver 35 being accompanied with thousands of Angels did from the midst of them give Moses this law and Jesus Christ is here called the Angel because of his outward apparition like one The Sanctuary did express this giving of the Law for their God sate between the Cherubims and from the midst of them uttered his Oracles for Moses was commanded to build the Tabernacie according to the pattern as he saw in the Mount and that is the meaning of the Psal 68. 8. The chariots of God are twenty thousand Angels the Lord is in the miâ—st of them Sinaâ— is in â—he holy place So a learned man Deiu interpreteth it that is God doth in the Sanctuary from the Cherubims deliver his Oracles as he did the Law on Mount Sinai from between Angels and thus you have this fully explained In the next place you have the remote cause by the hand of a Mediator Some understand this of Moses that he was the Mediator in giving the Law between God and the Iews and so that Text Deut. 5. 5. where Moses is said to stand between the Lord and them may seem to confirm this interpretation and Moses indeed may be said to be a Mediator typically as the sacrifices were types of Christs blood and as he is called Act. 7. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Redeemer though Beza and our English Bible renders it a deliverer But many interpreters understand it of Christ that he was the Mediator in the Law and indeed the words following seem to approve of this for saith the Apostle a Mediator is not a Mediator of one that is of those that are one in consent and accord but of those that dissent now Moses could not be truly and really a Mediator between God and the people of Israel when God was angry with them for their sins Besides the Law as is to be shewed is a Covenant of grace and Christ onely can be the Mediator in such a Covenant by way of Office because he only is Medius in his nature Beza indeed brings Arguments against this interpretation but they seem not strong enough to remove this sense given neither doth this phrase by the hand which is an Hebraisme denote alwaies ministery and inferiority but sometimes power and strength but more of this in the explication of the doctrine Obser It was a great honour put upon the Law in that it was delivered by Christ accompanied with thousands of Angels There was never any such glorious Senate or Parliament as this Assembly was wherein the Law wâ—â— enacted Iesus Christ himself being the Speaker and by how much the mâ—â—â— glory God put upon it the greater is the sin of those Doctrines which do dâ—rogate from it Indeed though Christ gave the Law yet the Apostle make the preheminency of the Gospel far above it because Christ gave the Law onely in the form of an Angel but he gave the gospel when made man whereby was manifested the glory not of Angels but of the onely begotten Son of God how carefull then should men be lest they offend or transgress that Law which hath such sacred authority It is a wonder to see how men are afraid to break mans Law which yet cannot damn but tremble not at all in the offending of that Law-giver who is only able to save or destroy For the opening of this consider First that Iesus Christ is the Angel that gave this Law as the chief captain of all those Angels that did accompany him For Act. 7. 35. It is the same that appeared to Moses in the bush God the Father hath committed the whole Government and guidance of the redemption of that people of Israel into the hands of Christ Hence Isa 6. 3. 9. he is called the Angel of the Covenant because he made that Covenant of the Law with his people on mount Sinai This is the Angel that Exod. 33. 2. God said he would send before them to drive out the Nations of the land and v 14. there he is called the face of God or his presence which should go before them and you have a notable place Exod. 23. 20. I will send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared beware of him provoke him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my name is in him by this it is clear that it was Iesus Christ who was subservient to the Father in this whole work of Redemption out of Aegypt Grotius in the explication of the Decalogue judgeth it a grievous errour to hold that the second person in the Trinity was the Angel who gave this Law and indeed all the Socinians deny this because they say Christ had no subsistency before his Incarnation some Papists also think it to be a created Angel but he must needs be God because this Angel beginneth thus in the promulgation of the Law I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Aegypt Neither wil that serve for an answer which Grotius saith that the Angel cals himself the God that brought them out of Aegypt because he is an Embassador and speaks in the name of the Lord for were not the Prophets Gods Embassadors yet their language was Thus saith the Lord they never appropriated the name of Iehovah to themselves whereas this Angel is called Iehovah and 1 Cor. 10. 9. The Iews are said to tempt Christ because he was the Angel that did deliver them by Moses It is disputed whether when any Angel appeared who was also God that it was also the Son of God so that in the Old Testament the Father and the Holy ghost never appeared but the Son only Austin thought it a question worth the deciding when he spent a great part of his second book of the Trinity in handling of it Many of the ancient Fathers thought that it was the Son onely that appeared so that all the apparitions which were to Adam to Abraham to Moses the God
proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jews So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and do say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians do professe they do not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also do not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speak not of the whole latitude of the Ministery of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there could be no obligation from the matter had it not been revoked and abolished then the Morall Law given by Moses must still oblige though it did not binde in respect of the matter unlesse we can shew where it is repealed For the further clearing of this you may consider that this was the great Question which did so much trouble the Church in her infancy Whether Gentiles converted were bound to keep up the Ceremoniall Law Whether they were bound to circumcise and to use all those legall purifications Now how are these Questions decided but thus That they were but the shadows and Christ the fulnesse was come and therefore they were to cease And thus for the Judiciall Laws because they were given to them as a politick body that polity ceasing which was the principall the accessory falls with it so that the Ceremoniall Law in the judgement of all had still bound Christians were there not speciall revocations of these commands and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law for the matter of that is perpetuall and there are no places of Scripture that do abrogate it And if you say that the Apostle in some places speaking of the Law seemeth to take in Morall as well as Ceremoniall I answer it thus The question which was first started up and troubled the Church was meerly about Ceremonies as appeareth Act 15. and their opinion was that by the usage of this Ceremoniall worship they were justified either wholly excluding Christ or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law Now it 's true the Apostles in demolishing this errour do ex abundanti shew that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law but neither of the Morall Law do justifie but that benefit we have by Christ onely Therefore the Apostles when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute they do it in respect of justification not obligation for the maine Question was Whether the Ceremoniall Law did still oblige and their additionall errour was that if it did oblige we should still be justified by the performance of those acts so that the Apostles do not joyn the Morall and Ceremoniall Law in the issue of obligation for though the Jewes would have held they were not justified by them yet they might not have practised them but in regard of justification and this is the first Argument The second Argument is from the Scripture urging the Morall Law upon Gentiles converted as obliging of them with the ground and reason of it which is that they were our fathers so that the Jews and Christians beleeving are looked upon as one people Now that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted as a commandment heretofore delivered is plain When Paul writeth to the Romans chap. 13. 8 9. he telleth them Love is the fulfilling of the Law and thereupon reckons up the commandments which were given by Moses Thus when he writeth to the Ephesians that were not Jews cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother because it 's the first Commandment with promise Now
truly the opposition that seemeth to be in those words It hath been said to them of old but I say unto you makes me incline to the former way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the dative case It is also demanded who are meant by those of old to what age that doth extend Some referre it to those times only that were between Esdras and Christ but I rather think it is to be extended even unto Moses his time for we see our Saviour instanceth in commands delivered then and thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally except Act 21. 16. referreth to the times of Moses or the Prophets Secondly Whether those Precepts which are said to be heard of old be the Law and words of Moses or the additions of corrupt glossers And that most of them are the expresse words of Moses it is plain as Thou shalt not kill or Commit adultery but the doubt lyeth upon two places The first is ver 21. Shall be in danger of judgement Here is say some a two-fold corruption 1. By adding words which are not in the Scripture for they speake peremptorily He shall dye whereas these words seem to be obscure and doubtfull He shall be brought before the judges to be tryed whether he be guilty or no. The second corruption they conceive in the sense and that is as if the Pharisees did understand the Commandment only to forbid actuall murder but not murderous thoughts affections or intentions And this last seemeth clearly to be the truth as is to be shewed afterwards but for the former I do something doubt because though that addition be not exprest in so many words yet there seemeth to be that which is equivalent for Numb 35. 30. there we read the murderer who was to be put to death was to be tryed by witnesses which argueth there were Judges to determine the cause The second particular is that ver 43. Thou shalt hate thy enemy where some learned men observe a three-fold depravation 1. An implyed one as if a friend were only a neighbour 2. A plain omission for Lev. 19. it 's added as thy self which is here omitted 3. A plain addition of that which was not only not commanded or permitted but expresly prohibited as Exod. 23. 4. Prov. 25. 21. And this may probably be thought an interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees arguing on the contrary that if we were to love our neighbours then we were to hate our enemies yet there are some who would make the sense of this in the Scripture that is in a limited sense to the Canaanites for they think that because they were commanded to make no Covenant with them but to destroy them and not to pity them therefore this is as much as to hate them and thereupon they understand the two fore quoted places that speak of relieving of our enemies to be only meant of enemies that were Jews their Country-men and not of strangers And the Jews thought they might kill any idolaters Therefore Tacitus saith of them there was misericordia in promptu apud suos mercy to their own but contra omnes alios hostile odium hostile hatred against all others yet this command of God to destroy those Nations some understand not absolutely but limitedly if so be they did refuse the conditions of peace I therefore incline to those who think it a perverse addition of the Scribes and Pharisees yet am not able to say the other is false 3. Whether our Saviour do oppose himself here to others as a Law-giver or as an Interpreter cleansing away the mud and filth from the fountain And this indeed is worthy the disquisition for this chapter hath been taken by the Manichees and Marcionites of old and by other erroneous persons of late to countenance great errours for some have said that the Author of the Old-Testament and the New Testament are contrary some have said that the New-Testament or the Gospel containeth more exact and spirituall duties then the Old Hence they conclude that many things were lawful then which are not now and they instance in Magistracy resisting of injuries swearing and loving of our enemies and many counsels of perfection added And this is a very necessary Question for hereby will be laid open the excellency of the Law when it shall be seen that Jesus Christ setting aside the positive precepts of Baptisme and the Lords Supper c. commanded no new duty but all was a duty before that is now Now that our Saviour doth only interpret and not adde new Laws will appear 1. From that protestation and solemn affirmation he makes before he cometh to instruct the hearers about their duties Think not that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill it Now although it be true that Christ may be said to fulfill the Law diverse wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his doctrinall fulfilling it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking of the Law and if this be so then our Saviours intent was that he came not to teach them any new duty to which they were not obliged before onely he would better explicate the Law to them that so they might be sensible of sin more then they were and discover themselves to be fouler and more abominable then ever they judged themselves Thus Theophylact As a painter doth not destroy the old lineaments only makes them more glorious and beautifull so did Christ about the Law In the next place Christ did not adde new duties which were not commanded in the Law because the Law is perfect and they were bound not to adde to it or detract from it Therefore we are not to continue a more excellent way of duty then that prescribed there Indeed the Gospel doth infinitely exceed in regard of the remedy prescribed for afflicted sinners and the glorious manifestation of his grace and goodnesse but if we speak of holy and spirituall duties there cannot be a more excellent way of holinesse this being an idea and representation of the glorious nature of God 3. That nothing can be added to the Law appeareth by that Commandment of loving God with all our heart and soul Now there can be nothing greater then this and this command is not only indicative of an end which we are to aime at but also preceptive of all the means which tend thereunto And lastly our Saviour saith not Except your righteousnesse exceed that of Moses his Law or which was delivered by him but that of the Scribes and Pharisees implying by that plainly his intent was to detect and discover those formall and hypocriticall wayes which they pleased themselves in when indeed they never understood the marrow and excellency of the Law Question 4. What was the opinion received among the Pharisees concerning the Commandments of God That you may know the just ground our Saviour had thus to expound the Law it will be manifest if you consider the generall opinion
God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentally to concur thereunto onely this cometh by Christ The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification or adoption so that when a man doth repent turn unto God from his sins he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth but it must be in the promise of the Gospel so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lieth not in this as some do assigne that one is the instrument of grace and the other not for God useth both as I shall shew but in this that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God whether it be Law or gospel doth not justifie us but this favour is in an evangelicall manner by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us Therefore let us not confound the Law or Gospel nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects that where one is the other cannot be To these two there is also a third thing to be premised and that is how the word of God in generall is a medium or instrumentall to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that the Law of God being part of Gods word doth convert as well as the Gospel and this must needs be the opinion of all sound Divines whatsoever may fall from them at other times as appeareth by their common answer to the Papists Question If the Law and the commands thereof be impossible to what purpose then doth he command them why doth he bid us turne to him when we cannot Then we answer that these commandements are not onely informing of a duty but they are practicall and operative means appointed by God to work at least in some degree that which is commanded Hence those commands are compared by the Learned to that command of our Saviour to Lazarus that he should rise up and walk It doth also further appeare in those ends they assigne of Gods revealing the Law viz. to make us see as in a glasse our Deformity to be humbled before God to be affrighted out of our selves to seek for grace in Christ now can the meer Law of it selfe do this doth not grace work this in us by the preaching of the Law and is not this the initiall grace of conversion as Austin said Tract 12. in Johan cumcaeperit tibi displicere quod fecisti inde incipiunt bona opera tua quia accusas mala operatua Initium operum bonorum est confessio malorum The beginning of good in us is the accusation of that which is bad Therefore for the clearing of this generall take notice 1. That the word of God as it is read or preached worketh no further then objectively to the conversion of a man if considered in it self Take it I say in it self not animated by the Spirit of God and the utmost effect it can reach unto is to work onely as an object upon the Understanding And in this sense it is that the Scripture is compared to a light Now we know the Sun giveth light by way of an object it doth not give a seeing eye to a blind man It is a noble Queston in Divinity Seeing regeneration is attributed both to the word and to Baptisme how one worketh it differently from the other Or If both work it why is not one superfluous Now concerning the word preached we may more easily answer then about the Sacraments viz. that it works by way of an object upon the soul of a man and were it not set home by the Spirit of God this is the furthest worke it could obtaine And this doth plainly appeare in that the word of God doth only convert those who are able to heare and understand And the word of God being thus of it selfe onely a directive and informative rule hence it 's compared to the Pilots Compasse to Theseus his thred leading us in the Circean gardens of this world and therefore take away the Spirit of God and we may say the whole Scripture is a letter killing yea that which we call the Gospel Preach the promises of the Gospel a thousand times over they convey no grace if the spirit of God be not there effectually Indeed if the communicating of grace were inseparably annexed to the preaching of the Gospel then that were of some consequence which is objected by the Antinomian But sad experience sheweth that notwithstanding the large promises of grace to overflow like a fountain whereas in the Old Testament it was by drops only yet the greater part to whom the grace of God is offered are not converted Therefore in the next place consider this Whatsoever good effects or benefit is conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the Law or the Gospel it 's efficiently from Gods Spirit so that we must not take the Law without the Spirit of God and then compare it with the Gospel having the Spirit of God for that is unequall And by the same reason I may preferre the Law sometimes before the Gospel for I may suppose a Minister opening the duties of the Law as Christ doth here in this Chapter and the Spirit of God accompanying this to change the heart of a man and on the otherside one preaching the Gospel in the greatest glory of it yet not accompanyed with Gods Spirit there may not be the least degree of grace wrought in any hearer Therefore I cannot well understand that the Law indeed that sheweth us our duty but the Gospel that giveth us grace to do it for if you take the Gospel for the Promises preached how many are there that heare these that yet receive no benefit by them and on the other side if the Law setting forth our duty be accompanyed with Gods Spirit that may instrumentally work in us an ability to our duty and without the Spirit the Gospel cannot do it It is true if this were the meaning that had there been only Law there could never have been any grace vouchsafed but it is by reason of Christ and so the Promises of the Gospel that any good is brought to the soules and so the Law worketh as a medium to our Conversion by Christ If I say this be the meaning then it 's true but the obscure and unclear expressing of this giveth an occasion to the Antinomian errour Now that the Scripture as it is written or preached without the Spirit of God cannot convert us is plain partly because then the devils and great men of parts which do understand the letter of the Scripture better then others would be sooner converted partly because the Scripture so far as it 's a word read or preached cannot reach to the heart to alter and change that Hence the Word of God though it be compared to a sword yet
it 's called a Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. Yet although this be true we must not fall into that extream 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 to prove the Law and the preaching of it the means 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 to instruct in righteousness 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 Math 13. the Word of God in generall is compared to seed fown 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 work 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 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 Gospell 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 thinke 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 Gospell 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 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 Use then of this be by way of admonition that in stead of disputing about or against the Law that we would pray to have the savory 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 LECTVRE 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 seem 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 do 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 do peremptorily maintain the use and the obligation of the Law in respect of believers Therefore they are not in this respect condemned for that errour Another consideration that I will propound is this
mitigated but Abrogation is then properly when a Law is totally taken away And this Abrogation ariseth sometimes from the expresse constitution at first which did limit and prescribe the time of the lawes continuance sometimes by an expresse revoking and repealing of it by that authority which made it sometimes by adding to that repeale an expresse law commanding the contrary Now it may be easily proved that the Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes they are abrogated by expresse repeale The Judiciall Law 1 Pet. 2. 13. where they are commanded to be subject to every ordination of man and this was long foretold Genes 49. 10. The Law-giver shall be taken from Judah The Ceremoniall Law that is also expresly repealed Act. 15. and in other places not that these were ill or that they did come from an ill author but because the fulnesse and substance of them was now come of whom the ceremonies were a shadow Yet still you must remember that while they were commanded of God they were the exercises of faith and piety God did dispense grace in the use of them only they were beggarly and empty to such who trusted in them neglected Christ Nor doth this assertion contradict that of the Apostle Ephes 2. 15. where he cals those ordinances enmity and decrees against us for those ceremonies may be considered two wayes first as they were signes of Gods grace and favour and secondly as they were demonstrative of a duty which we were tyed unto but could not performe and in this sense all those purifications and cleansings were against us Thus we see these lawes in every consideration made void so that it is not now an indifferent thing to use them though we would not put our trust in them but sinfull Hence I cannot see how that of Luther is true upon Gal. 2. who sath He beleeveth that if the Jewes beleeving had observed the Law and Circumcision in that manner which the Apostles permitted them that Judaisme had yet stood and that all the world should have received the ceremonies of the Jews In the second place if we would speake exactly and properly We cannot say in any good sense that the Morall Law is abrogated at all It is true indeed our learned Writers shew that the Law in abrogated in respect of justification condemnation and rigour of obedience all which I shall instance in afterwards but if a man would speake rigidly he cannot say it is abrogated Wee may say it 's mitigated as to our persons though Christ our surety did fully undergoe its for if God had taken away the Law so that man nor his surety had been under the curse of it or should have obeyed it then had it been properly abrogated whereas now seeing our surety was bound to satisfie it and perfectly to obey it and we still obliged to conforme unto it we cannot so properly in the generall say it was abrogated Therefore we may more properly say that there is a change and alteration in us towards the Law then that the Law is changed or abrogated Hence observe though the Apostle denyeth that he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make void the Law yet he useth this expression Rom. 7. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are freed or abrogated from the Law rather then that is abrogated Thus it is if we would speake properly yet because the satisfaction and obedience is by Christ and not by us we may say that it is abrogated to us so that we may not look for remission of sins or justification by it But you must still distinguish when we speake of the Law some parts of it from the whole some parts of the Law may be abolished and yet not the whole nature of it for there is in the Law these parts First the Commands Secondly the Promises of life to him that doth them and thirdly the threatnings of eternall wrath to him that faileth in the least Now the Morall Law though it be abrogated in respect of the two later to a beleever yet in respect of the former it doth still abide yea and will continue in Heaven it selfe And we have already proved against the Antinomians that one part of the Law may abide when the other doth not The third proposition Those that say the Law is abolished as it is foedus but not as it is regula say true The Law may be considered as it is a Covenant or as it is an absolute Rule requiring conformity unto it Now it may be truly granted that the Law is abolished in the former notion though not in the later only in expressing this Covenant there is difference among the Learned some make the Law a Covenant of works and upon that ground that it is abrogated others call it a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace and make it only occasionally as it were introduced to put more luster and splendour upon grace Others call it a mixt covenant of works and grace but that is hardly to be understood as possible much lesse as true I therefore think that opinion true as shall be hereafter shewed that the Law given by Moses was a Covenant of grace and that God did not since man fallen ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of grace Though indeed this Covenant of grace did breake out more clearly in succession of ages according to the wise dispensation of Gods good pleasure So then the Law as a Covenant though of grace is abrogated because though there be still the same essence of the former and later covenant yet the administration of the former is altogether antiquated This fully appeareth in Heb. 7. 18 19. and again Heb. 8. 7 8. whosoever therefore expects life and justification by the Law he sets up the covenant of works again Nor is it any advantage to say these workes are the workes of grace and wrought by Christs spirit for still if we were justified by doing whatsoever the works were yet it would be in such a way as Adam was though with some difference We therefore doe desire to lift up our voices as vehemently as any Antinomian against self Justiciaries against pharisaicall Popish formall men that say unto the good workes they doe These are thy Christ These are thy Jesus oh my soul In matter of Justification we would have all of Pauls Spirit to know nothing but Christ crucified to account all things dung and drosse We desire to bewaile and abundantly to bewaile the little need and want that people feel of Christ in all their duties We are troubled that any can be quiet in their duties and performances and do not cry out None but Christ None but Christ All this we pleade for and preach only we hold the Law as a rule still to walk by though not a Covenant of works to be justified by 4. The Antinomian distinction of the Law abolished as a Law but still abiding in respect of the matter of it
he cannot meane the Law of Moses for all know that was long after but he meanes what 's done in obedience to the Morall Law so farre as it was then revealed The Apostle useth also another phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law which is to be understood in this sense by works done in conformity to the Law and in this sense the Apostle urgeth that righteousnesse or the promise are not by the Law But all the difficulty in this controversie is about the phrase Under the Law Therefore take notice 4. There is a voluntary being under the Law as Christs was and there is to be under it in an ill sense A voluntary and willing obedience unto the Law is acceptable and thus the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 20. the Apostle saith he was made to some as under the Law though there indeed he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is added because of the ceremoniall part of the Law Therefore he calleth himselfe excellently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a godly man be not properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he addeth to Christ lest they should think that he spoke of the whole Law the ceremoniall part of it which was abolished by Christ so that a godly man in a well explained sense may be said to be under the Law Aquinas Comment ad Cap. 6. v. 14. Hath this distinction A man may be under the Law or subjected to it two wayes First willingly and readily as Christ Secondly unwillingly by way of compulsion when not out of love but feare men do obey the Law this is sinful in the former sense all beleevers may be said to be under the Law but yet because the Apostle useth it for the most part in an ill sense as here in the text and in that place tell me ye that desire to be under the Law though Law there be used for the whole Ministery of Moses and not of the Morall Law let us consider in what sense this is denied to the Godly 5. That Interpretation of some though of solid Judgement who make the phrase Not to be under the Law to be as much as Not under the curse of the Law or Not obnoxious to the guilt by it seemeth not to agree with the context I know this is generally received as the sense of the place and there is this argument urged for it because the Apostle maketh an objection from hence Shall we sinne because we are not under the Law but under grace Therefore it should seem that the Law is taken for the condemning power of it and grace for pardoning and free Justification but because the Apostle is here speaking of sanctification both in this Chapter and the Chapter following I preferre Beza's interpretation which makes the being under the Law to be the same in sense with under sin for the Apostle speaking of himselfe as carnall Chap. 7. saith that the Law wrought in him all manner of evill and this indeed is the work of the Law in every unregenerate man so that the more the Law is applyed to him the more doth his corruption break forth Now then this is the Apostles argument Let not sin reign in you for now you are not under the Law stirring up sin and provoking it in you but under grace not justifying or pardoning as properly and immediately meant here though they were under that also but sanctifying and healing And the Apostle maketh the objection following What then shall we sin because we are not under the Law because the phrase was ambiguous and might be thought to have such a sense as the Libertines make it to have to wit to do every thing as we please without any controule by any Law and in this explication we shall see a sweet harmony in the context The third instance is Rom. 7. especially in the beginning of the Chapter but the answer to the former Objection will also cleare this because the apostle continueth in the same matter explaining what it is to be under the Law by a similitude from a wife married to an husband who is bound to him so long as he liveth but when he dyeth she is free Now in the reddition of the similitude there is some difference among Commentators but I take it thus Sin which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruptions that is the former husband the soul had and lusts they are the children hereof but when we are regenerated then Christ becomes the husband of the godly soul so that they are deceived who make the Morall Law the husband but sin is properly the husband And if you will say the Morall Law you must understand it in this sense only as it doth inflame the heart to all evil therefore the Apostle as is well observed by the Learned doth not say the Law is dead but we are dead for indeed the Law is never so much alive as in the godly who do constantly obey it live accordingly to it This will also serve for that place Gal. 5. 18. If ye be led by the spirit ye are not under the Law That is under the Law forcibly compelling Austin distinguisheth of four states of men those who are Ante legem and these commit sin without knowledge of it Sub lege and these commit it with some fighting but are overcome Sub gratia and these do fight and shall overcome and Sub pace these we may make to be those in heaven LECTVRE XXIIII DEUT. 4. 13. And he declared unto you his Covenant which he commanded you to performe even ten Commandements c. I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule and now come to consider of it as a Covenant that so the whole Law may be fully understood I shall not be long upon this though the matter be large and difficult though the subject be like the Land of Canaan yet there are many Gyants and great Objections in the way I will rather handle it positively then controversally for I do not finde in any point of Divinity learned men so confused and perplexed being like Abrahams Ram hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head as here That I may methodically proceed observe the context of this verse and the scope Moses being to perswade the people of Israel to obedience of the Law useth severall forcible arguments As ver 1. The good and profitable issue thereof which is to live and possesse the land not as if this mercy were only temporall but by this was represented eternall life in heaven A second argument is from the perfection of it that nothing may be added to it or detracted from it The third argument is from the great wisdome and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations there being no people under the sun that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had and if that be true of Bernard
of Christ make us to repent of sin and all the love he shewed therein Do not godly Ministers to work people into an hatred of sin tell them the price of blood is in every sin committed Is it not said that they shall look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn for their sins I answer all this is true but then these things work by way of an object not as a command and it is from the Law that we should shew our selves kind unto him who loved us unto death so that the object is indeed from the Gospel but the command to be affected with his death because of his kindness therein manifested doth arise from Gods Law Let therefore those who say that the preaching of the Gospel will humble men and break their hearts for their sins consider how that it is true by the Gospel as an object by the Law as that which commands such affections to those objects Let the use of this doctrine be to direct Christians in their practicall improvement of Law and Gospel without hindring each other There are many things in Christianity that the people of God make to oppose one another when yet they would promote each other if wisely ordered Thus they make their joy and trembling their faith and repentance their zeal and prudence the Law and Gospel to thwart one another whereas by spiritual wisdom they might unite them take the Law for a goad the Gospel for a cordial from the one be instructed from the other be supported when thy heart is careless and dull run thither to be excited when thy soul is dejected and fearfull throw thy self into the armes of the Gospel The Law hath a loveliness in it as well as the Gospel the one is a pure character and Image of the holiness of God the other is of the mercy and goodness of God so that the consideration of either may wonderfully inflame thy affections and raise them up LECTVRE XXVIII ROM 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth AS the Physitian saith Peter Martyr who intends to give strong physick which may expell noxious humours in the diseased body doth prepare the body first by some potions to make it fluid and fit for operation so Paul being sharply to accuse the Jews and to drive them out of their selfe righteousness doth manifest his love to them sugaring the bitter pill that they might swallow it with more delight And this his love is manifested partly by his expression brethren partly by his affections and prayers my hearts desire and prayer The occasion of this his affection is the zeale that they have for God but in a wrong way As the skillfull husbandman that seeth a piece of ground full of weeds and brambles wisheth he had that ground which by culture and tillage would be made very fruitfull Amo unde amputem said the Orator I love the wit that needs some pruning The luxuriancie is a signe of fertility This zeale was not a good zeale partly because it wanted knowledge and therefore was like Sampson without his eyes partly because it made them proud which the Apostle fully expresseth in two particulars 1 They sought to establish their owne righteousness They sought this did imply their willfull pride and arrogancy and to establish which supposeth their righteousness was weak and infirme ready to fall to the ground but they would set it up for all that as the Philistims would their Dagon though he was tumbled downe before the Ark. 2. The Apostle expresseth it signally when he saith They submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God In the originall They were not submitted in the passive signification which still supposeth the great arrogancy that is in a man naturally being unwilling to deny his owne righteousness and to take Christ for all This being so take notice by the way of a foule errour of the Antinomian who denying assurance and comfort by signes of grace laboureth to prove that an unregenerate man may have universall obedience and sincere obedience bringing this instance of the Jews for sincere obedience But sincerity may be taken two waies First as it opposeth gross hypocrisie and so indeed the Jews zeale was not hypocriticall because they did not goe against their conscience or Secondly it may be taken as it opposeth the truth of grace and so the Jews zeale was not a true gracious zeale for the reasons above named Now my Text that is given as a reason why the Jews did look to their owne righteousness not that of Gods because they neglected Christ who is here said to be the end of the Law for righteousness The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie the extreme and last end of a thing Thus Mark. 13. 7. The end is not yet so those who are against the calling of the nation of the Jews bring that place 1 Thes 2. ver 16. Wrath is come upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if there were no mercy to be expected But this may admit of another exposition Sometimes the word is used for perfection and fullfilling of a thing acording to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neer bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandment is charity may seem to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fulness of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when he gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to
righteous then Adam What God requireth of us is not greater then what he demanded of Adam in innocency Adams immortality in the state of innocency different from and short of that which shall be in heaven 1. What meant by words 2. Nothing to be added or taken from them 3. God the Author of this Law 4. The manner of delivering it Doctr. The word Law is capable of diverse senses and significations Of the division of Laws in general and why the Morall so called The Law of Moses differs from the law of Nature 1. In respect of power of binding 2. The breach of the Law given by Moses is a greater sin then the breach of the law of Nature 3. The Morall Law requires justifying faith and repentance and contains more particulars in it then the law of Nature The Law was given when the Israelites were in the wilderness and not sooner 1. Because being come out of Aegypt they were to be restrained of their impiety and idolatry 2. Because they were now to grow into a Common-wealth The Law not only was but was publikely preached in the Church before Moses The ends of the promulgation of the Law were 1. That the Israelites might see what holiness was required of them 2. That they might come to knâ—w sin and be humbled 3. To shadow out unto them the excellent and holy nature of God The delivering of this Law to the Israelites 〈…〉 at mâ—â—â—â— unto them The Law of Moses is a perfect rule 1. The Law was given with great majesty thereby to procure the greater authority to it There is a difference between the Morall Iudiciall and Ceremoniall Law notwithstanding they were given at the same time The Morall Law more excellent then the Iudiciall and Ceremoniall in three respects God humbled the Israelites before he gave them his Law God setled his worship before he gave them Canaan Preparation required before the hearing of the Law 1. The people must sanctifie themselves 2. They must not touch the Mount 3. Nor come at their wives 2. The Law was given with great Majesty that so the people might be raised up to reverence the Law-giver 3. The Law was written by God in Tables of stone to denote the dignity and perpetuity of it What meant by the finger of God a Iob 19. 24. 4 The Israelites notwithstanding the delivery of this Law was with power and Maiesty quickly broke it 5. Moses his abode in the Mount procured authority both to himself and the Law 6. Moses his breaking of the Tables intimates that justification is not to be had by them Moses his zeal in breaking the Tables vindicated from rashnesse and sinful perturbation of minde 7. Gods manifestation of his glory unto Moses makes for his honour 8. Though the writing of the second Tables was Gods work yet the forming and polishing them was the work of Moses 9. The extraordinary glory that was upon Moses argues the administration of the Law to be glorious 10. The preservation of the Law in the Ark makes much for the glory of it Seeing God hath put such marks of glory upon the Law let us take heed of disparaging it The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodox though the Law as given by Moses did not binde Christians The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the New Testament is binding Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the Observation thereof was intended for the Church of God perpetually The Morall Law is binding 1. In Regard of the matter of it 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. Arguments of the Antinomians whereby they would prove that the Law as given by Moses does not bind Christians examined answered Argum. 1. Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Argum. 2. Answ Though the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it yet in the obliging power of it it does Take heed of rejecting the Law as given by Moses a What is mean by It hath been said by them of old b VVho meant by those of old Those precepts said to be of old are the Law and words Moses Christ does only interpret the old adds no new laws The Pharisees were of opinion that the law did only reach the outward man and forbid out ward acts Doctr. No specificall difference of the duties in the Old Testament from those of the New but only graduall in their manifestation The Law did not only command the outward duty but required the worship of the heart 2. The Law preferred inward graces before outward duties All the duties required by the Law were to be done 1. In Faith 2. In love Love to God in as great a measure commanded by the Law as by the Gospel In all our addresses to God it required spirituall motives It required joy in God above all things else It required perfection of the subject object degrees c. The Law instrumentall to work grace in us as well as the Gospel It is the duty of Ministers to be diligent in preaching and expounding the Law Swearing neither absolutely unlawfull not universally forbidden by our Saviour with reasons why Corrupt glosses of the Pharisees touching Swaring reproved In what sense the words An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth are to be taken Capitall punishments even death it selfe may be inflicted upon Ofsenders 1. Because commanded by God * Grotius 2. Because it is the Magistrates office 3. Because practis'd under the Gospel upon Ananias and Sapphira and so not repugnant to it Object 1. Sol. Object 2. Sol. Object 3. Sol. Warre allowed by Christ under the Gospel Two causes for which the Primitive Christians might decline warre All men naturally prone ta revenge injuries The primitive Christians held it unlawfull for a man in his own defence to kill the invader Revenge as strictly forbidden in the Old Test as in the New Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour The preach ing of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally works the conversion of men The Law without Christ cannot work to regeneration The Law may be blessed to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion The word read or preached concurres obejctively onely to mans conversion All the benefits conveyed to the soul by the preaching of the word are efficiently from Gods Spirit The VVord without the Spirit cannot convert us and why Six Arguments to prove the Law and the preaching of it means of Conversion 1. 2. 3. Use Pray for the benefit of the
Law in our souls Conversion not wrought totally by the word read or preached but is to be attributed to the Covenant of grace in Christ Instance 1â— Answer 1. Answer 2. Gerhard Instance 2. Answ Instance 3. Answ Three Errours to be taken heed of in opening Gal 3. 2. Errour 1. Errour 2. Errour 3. The Text opened The Law established three wayes by the Gospel 'T is hard to set up Christ and grace and not be thought to destroy the Law The doctrine of Christ and grace doth establish the Law Interprtation dispensation c. affections of a Law We may say that the Morall Law is mitigated as to our persons but 't is not abrogated Three parts of the Law The Law is abolished as it is a Covenant but not as it is a Rule The Law given by Moses a Covenant of grace It is an absurd contradiction to say the matter of a Law bindeth but not as a Law The Law equally abrogated to beleevers under the Old and New Testament Antinomian Arguments mostly overthrow the use of the Law both to beleevers and unbelevers The Law to a beleever is abrogated 1. In respect of justification 2. In respect of condemnation 3. In respect of rigid obedience 4. In respect of tefrour and slavish obedience 5. In respect of the increase of sin 6. In respect of many Circumstantials 7. Yet that it continues to them as a rule appears 1. From the different phrases used concerning the ceremoniall Law 2. From that holinesse that it requires of the beleever 3. In that disobedience is still a sin 4. Because it differs from other lawes in respect of causes of abrogation Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated Places of Scripture seeming to hold forth the duration of the Moral Law for a time only answered * Minimum maximi est majus maximo minimi The Apostle argueth against the Law in comparison of Christ The word Law taken in a two-fold sense These Phrases of the Law Without the Law under the Law and In the Law explained A two-fold being under the Law The commonly received sense of that Phrase Not to be under this Law rejected Beza's inrerpretation of the phrase approv'd Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant appears 1. In that it haâ—h the name of a Covenant 2 In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Argum. 5. Argum. 6. Obiections impugning the former Arguments answered The words opened The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. Doctr. The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect The different use of the word Law carefully to be observed What meant by Law taken largely and what strictly False differences between the Law and the Gospel 1. Of Anabaptists and Socinians affirming That they under the Law in the Old Testament enioyed only temporall blessings 2. Of Papists 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Laws under the New Testament 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no oposite consideration 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immedatly to heaven 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New 2. That the Covenant God made with the Iews this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants 3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel not so under the law because no sacrifice save for sins of ignorance Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance 2. No legall sâ—crifice therefore no remission oâ— sin in consequent 3. The sin against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel 5 That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall only Heavenly obiects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old 1. It is so for the credenda 2. For the speranda 3. For the facienda The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel then under the Law The Iews under the Law were in a more servile condition then Christians under the Gospel The continuation of the Law was to last but till the coming of Christ Difference between the Law strictly taken and the Gospel strictly taken 1. The Law in some measure is known by the light of Nature but the truth of the Gospel must be wholly revealed by God 2. The Law requires perfect righteousness the Gospel brings pardon through Christ 3. If righteousness were by the Law eternall life were a debt but the Gospel holds it forth as Gods meere indulgence 4. The Law is only for those that have a perfect nature the Gospel for broken-hearted sinners 5. The Law conditional the Gospel absolute Repentance strictly taken is distinguished from Faith The Law and the Gospel are inseperably united in the Word and Ministery Faith and Repentance are wrought both by the Law and the Gospel Vnbeliefe a sin against the Law as well as the Gospel The Gospel taken strictly comprehends no more then the glad tidings of a Saviour Zeal that either wants knowledge or puffs up no good zeale Sincerity taken two waies The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law 2 Cot. 3. 7. opened The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation 2. Because of its duration it being to abide alwayes but the ministery of Moses to be abolished 3. Because the glory that cometh by the Gospel is spirituall that which shone upon Moses but materiall What signified by the shining of Moses his face 2. Christ is the end of perfection to the Law 3. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in vouchsafing us his Spirit that we may obey it 4. Christ is the end of perfection of the Law in that his obedience to it is made curs Object Aâ—sw The belâ—ever is the subject to whom Christ is made righteousness Righteousness is the end for which Christ is thus the perfection of the Law The beleever hath great cause to bless God for providing such a righteousness for him The Text opened What meant by Kingdom of heaven Doctr. The doctrines of men may either directly or covertly overthrow the Law Covertly there waies 1 When they make it not so extensive in its obligation as it is 2 VVhen they hold principles by necessary consequence inforcing the abrogation of it 3. VVhen they press such duties up on men as will necessitate them to break the commandements of God The Marcionites and Manichees the first oppugners of the Law Postions of Antinomians Antidotes against Antinomian errours 1. Be afraid of entertaining errours in doctrine as that which may damn thee 2. Look upon those places of Scripture where duties are commanded as well as those where Christ and grace are spoken of 3. Beware of affecting applause among the people 4. Get to be well grounded in the principles of Religion 5. Be not rash in publishing any new opinion 6. Antinomianisme overthrows Christ and grace
as Moses because the people could not endure the glorious light of his face put a vail upon it that so the people might converse with him thus the Minister whose parts and scholarship is far above the people should put on a vail by condescending to the people But the Apostle maketh another mysticall meaning wherein the hard things shall in time God willing be opened 10. The custody and preservation of the Law in the Ark. And this shall be the last Observation that will tend to the excellency of the Law As this one was witten by the immediate hand of God so was it only commanded to be preserved in the Ark. Now here is a great dispute in matter of History for 1 Kin. 8. 9. it's expresly said that in the Ark there was nothing save the tables of stone but Hebr. 9. 4. there is joyned Aarons rod and the pot of manna Those that for this respect would reject the Epistle to the Hebrews as of no authority are too bold and insolent Some think we cannot reconcile them yet the Scripture is true onely our understandings are weak Some think that at first God commanded those two to be laid with the tables of the Covenant but when the Temple was built by Solomon then all were laid aside by themselves and therefore say they that the History of the Kings speaketh of it as a new thing Some as Piscator make in to be as much as coram before or hard by and so they say the pot and rod were by the Ark. But I shall close with that of Junius who observes that the relative is in the feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so doth not relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ark the word immediatly going before but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacle In which tabernacle And this is frequent in the Scripture to do so And this though it may be capable of some objection yet doth excellently reconcile the truth of the history with Paul Now how long these Tables of stone were kept and what became of them at last we have no certainty This proveth the great glory God did put upon the Law above any thing else which I intended in all these historicall observations Vse 1. Of Instruction How willing God was to put marks of glory and perpetuity upon the Law and therefore we are to take heed of disparaging it For how necessary is it to have this Law promulged if it were possible as terribly in our congregations as it was on Mount Sinai This would make the very Antinomians finde the power of the Law and be afraid to reject it Certainly as the Physitian doth not purge the bodies till he hath made them fluid and prepared so may not the Ministers of Christ apply grace and the promises thereof to men of Epicurean or pharisaicall spirits till they be humbled by the discovery of sin which is made by the Law And I doubt it may fall out with an Antinomian who accounts sin nothing in the beleever because of justification as with one Dionysius a Stoick as I take it who held that pain was nothing but being once sick and tortured with the stone in the kidnies cried out that all that he had writ about pain was false for now he found it was something So it may fall out that a man who hath writ and preached that God seeth no sin in a believer may sometime or other be so awed and troubled by God that he shall cry out All that he preached about this he now findes to be false Therefore let those that have disparaged or despised it see their sin and give it its due dignity They report of Stesichorus that when in some words he had disparaged Helena's beauty he was struck blinde but afterwards when he praised her again he obtained the use of seeing It may be because thou hast not set forth the due excellency of the Law God hath taken away thy eye-sight not to see the beauty of it but begin with David to set forth the excellent benefits of it and then thou mayest see more glory in it then ever An additionall LECTVRE GAL. 3. 19. And it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator THe service and Ministery of the Angels about the promulgation of the Law will much make to the honour of the Law for we never read of Laws enacted by so sacred and August a Senate as the Moral Law was where Jesus Christ accompanied with thousands of Angels gave these precepts to the people of Israel We read of three solemn services of the Angels the first was their singing at the Creation of the world Job 38. 7. for by the morning stars are meant the Angels The second was at Christs birth when they cried Glory be to God c. and the third may be this in the promulgation of the Law For the unfolding of the words know that the Apostle in the former part of the chapter brings many arguments to prove that we are not justified by the Law and that the promise and eternall life could not come by it Now lest this discourse should seem derogatory to the Law he doth here as in other places upon the like occasion make an objection To what use then is the Law and v. 21. Is that Law against the promises Which he answers with great indignation God forbid and to the former objection he answereth in my Text showing the end of the Law that is not the end of the Law absolutely in it self but of the delivery at that time it was added because of transgressions to convince the proud and hypocriticall Iews of their wickedness and thereby to seal that righteousness of Christ He doth not here take all the manifold uses of the Law but that which was accomodate to his present scope This use he doth illustrate from the circumstance of duration It was to be till the coming of Christ whereby you see that the Apostle meaneth not the Morall Law as a rule of life for that is eternall as is to be shewed but the Regiment or Mosaicall Administrations in the Ceremoniall part thereof and there is nothing more ordinary with Paul then to take the Law Synecdochically for one part of the Law which rule if observed would Antidote against Antinomianisme In the next place he commends this Law by a seasonable and fit digression from a two-fold Ministerial cause one proxime and immediate the Angels the other remote by the hand of a Mediator some indeed think this is added for the debasement of the Law and to difference it from the Gospel because the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel immediatly by Christ but I rather take it for a commendation lest he should have been thought to have condemned it for you know his adversaries charged this upon him Act. 21. 21. That he spake against the Law Now though the Apostle doth extoll the Gospel infinitely above the Law yet he always gives the Law